The Senate has decisively rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to significantly slash funding for federal scientific agencies. On Thursday, the Senate voted 82-15 to allocate billions more to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) than what was requested by the president.
This bipartisan minibus budget will fund various agencies focused on science and the environment until September 30. The bill had passed the House last week with an overwhelming vote of 397-28.
Following the Trump administration’s budget suggestions would have resulted in catastrophic cuts: a 57% reduction for the NSF, a 47% cut for NASA’s scientific research division, and a 27% decrease for NOAA, which manages the National Weather Service, as stated by Sen. Patty Murray from Washington. As highlighted in Congressional testimony last summer.
The bill is set to be presented to President Donald Trump for his signature.
Despite an overall reduction in spending, the strong bipartisan support underscores a consensus to either maintain the status quo or implement only modest cuts.
Additionally, the legislation includes significant funding boosts for several scientific programs that the Trump administration eyed for elimination, notably NOAA’s satellite program. It also allocates resources to strengthen the workforce of the National Weather Service, which has seen cuts through layoffs and other measures.
This bipartisan effort was spearheaded by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Murray.
In her remarks on the Senate floor, Collins expressed her strong support for the NSF, which provides nearly a quarter of federal funding for essential scientific research, according to their official site.
“I am delighted that we could restore the funding originally proposed for cuts and also address indirect research funding, a priority for me,” Collins stated.
Indirect research costs cover vital expenses such as equipment, operations, maintenance, accounting, and personnel. Earlier this year, the Trump administration sought to redefine the baseline for these costs, but the current budget prevents such changes.
In an overview of the bill, Murray emphasized a boost of $1.67 billion for NOAA and an additional $5.63 billion for NASA compared to Trump’s requests.
“We have stood firm against Trump’s proposed cuts to scientific research, reducing the NSF’s budget by 57%, halving NASA’s science budget, and devastating NOAA and crucial climate research resources,” she remarked in a Senate floor address on Monday. She stated during her speech.
Murray also stressed, “This legislation reinforces Congress’ authority over significant spending decisions.”
When asked about the president’s potential signature, the White House directed NBC News to a previous statement from the Office of Management and Budget. This statement indicated administration support, highlighting that the bill would contribute to overall spending cuts and assist the nation’s journey toward “energy dominance.”
“If the bill is presented to the president in its current form, senior advisers will likely recommend he sign it into law,” read the statement.
Congress will soon review additional minibus bills covering labor, healthcare, national security, and other critical issues. Lawmakers must finalize spending by January 30, the deadline established following a 43-day government shutdown.
In her remarks on Thursday, Collins reiterated her focus on getting the bill signed into law by the deadline to prevent an “unnecessary and extremely damaging government shutdown.”
Rowan Hooper: Bill, when you announced your visit to the office, people reacted as if Ryan Gosling or David Beckham were arriving.
Bill Bryson: That’s just my appeal.
RH: Your book from 2003, A Short History of Almost Everything, has become one of the best-selling nonfiction titles of the 21st century, and you’ve now released a revised edition.
It’s over 20 years old, and science has evolved tremendously since then. Consider the Denisovans: back when I wrote the first edition, little was known about these ancient humans, just like Homo floresiensis – the Hobbit. Revisiting and updating this was gratifying because I reconnected with many experts I first interviewed two decades ago.
RH: One of the most rewarding aspects of being a science reporter is the privilege of speaking with leading experts and engaging them about their groundbreaking research.
For many scientists, their work often goes unnoticed, especially in fields that lack public interest. I’m here to say that their contributions are remarkable and worth discussing.
I always ask, what inspired you to enter your specific field? What was that defining moment that made you passionate about studying, say, lichens?
RH: Shifting gears, what was your own “Eureka” moment in science?
I struggled with science during my school years. Coming of age in America during the 1950s and 1960s, education focused heavily on producing future scientists, which didn’t resonate with everyone.
Yet, I believe everyone should connect with science at some level. Science is foundational—it explains our existence and guides us towards understanding our future. My aim was to engage people in this discovery, sparking curiosity without delving into complexities like equations and technical jargon.
When I first pitched this idea to publishers, they dismissed it as impractical, suggesting I leave popular science to titans like Stephen Hawking. But they eventually allowed me to proceed.
To my surprise, many people are eager to learn about science just as I am. The book’s essence revolves around the question: “How do we know what we know?” It explores the processes scientists use to uncover knowledge.
Remarkably, I found it fascinating how much we still don’t know. The unknown is as compelling as the known.
Understanding that we cannot yet quantify all the insect species on Earth highlights this point.
RH: Many species are disappearing before we’ve even identified them, directly linking to climate change, which isn’t covered in the book. What was the rationale behind that decision?
The book aims to clarify our historical understanding and the current state of knowledge. Thus, its focus leans towards the history of science.
Penny Sarche: One significant change from the initial edition to the new one is the human lifespan—previously 74.2 years, it has now extended to over 80 years. This reflects a major increase in longevity.
Originally, I emphasized that a human lifespan comprises roughly 650,000 hours. Reflecting on all the moments spent idly, like watching Coronation Street, makes me value the time we have.
PS: Did you encounter any unexpected insights while revising this book?
I was amazed to discover that we’ve identified twice as many moons in the solar system. I pondered, “How difficult can it be to keep track of moons?”
“
One thing I didn’t expect was that it’s actually quite interesting that there’s so much we don’t know. “
In the past 20 years, the number of moons orbiting Jupiter has tripled, with most being relatively small. The definition of a moon is simply a rock that orbits a planet.
RH: Another notable change is the complexity of human family trees, now resembling a hedge rather than a straightforward line. Was that surprising? It seems almost manageable, right?
It was indeed surprising. Experts initially believed they had a solid grasp on human ancestry, but discoveries concerning the Denisovans and other ancient human groups have complicated matters.
What fascinates me is how ancient humans interacted and coexisted. Contrary to popular belief, interbreeding was common among different groups, suggesting a rich and intertwined history.
Alec Luhn: Twenty years ago, the scientific community operated in a calmer atmosphere. Currently, discussions in the U.S. suggest a war on science. Did this create pressure while writing the 2.0 edition?
The main goal of this book is to sustain the dialogue around science for another 20 years, hoping for reflection on the current climate as a temporary phase.
It would be tragic if such policies and institutionalized dissent became a long-lasting aspect of the U.S.
This text is revised from an interview shared on the New Scientist podcast titled “The World, the Universe, and Us.”
The sun is shining brighter through solar energy. According to Ember, a think tank on energy, solar energy has been the fastest-growing power source globally for the past two decades.
In 2022, solar power generation capacity surpassed 1 terawatt for the first time, and just two years later, it doubled, contributing 7% to the world’s electricity supply. When including wind turbines, which harness solar energy through different methods, solar accounted for 15% of global electricity last year.
This surge in solar energy is not simply due to an increased commitment to climate goals. Indeed, as noted in another Ember Report, many renewable energy targets have barely made progress towards achieving net-zero emissions over the past decade.
The true driver behind the rise of solar is its position as the most cost-effective method of electricity generation almost everywhere.
In his book Here Comes the Sun: The Last Chance for Climate and a New Chance for Civilization, long-time climate advocate Bill McKibben asserts that we are on the brink of a critical historical transition—from reliance on fossil fuels to embracing solar energy. “We are looking to the heavens for energy instead of to hell,” McKibben writes.
Below, he provides a thoughtful exploration of how solar energy not only addresses climate issues in time but also transforms the interaction between the economy and the natural world.
This is not the first call to action for a swift transition to renewable sources. However, it offers a visionary glimpse of what a solar-powered society could look like, going beyond just technological and economic considerations during the energy shift.
Solar-led energy transitions may be inevitable, but they may not happen quickly enough.
“This critical transformation is now presented as the most significant bargain ever, yet it remains cloaked in mysteries we have yet to fully unravel,” he notes.
This optimism is presented by McKibben, a renowned voice in environmentalism since his first book, The End of Nature, where he first alerted the world to the climate crisis.
Rather than detailing the ongoing damage from climate change, he emphasizes the numerous advantages of increased solar power, including more stable energy prices and reduced reliance on fossil fuel-rich states.
On a spiritual note, he suggests that this shift may rekindle our deep respect for the sun and its immense power.
McKibben also engages with skeptics of renewable energy, providing a balanced perspective on the trade-offs in the energy transition, such as the rising demand for minerals, land use, and potential job losses in fossil fuel industries. His argument is reinforced by an array of global anecdotes from different energy transitions, including a positive mention of the Kentucky Coal Mines Museum’s transition to solar energy to cut costs.
Nevertheless, doubts linger about the feasibility of McKibben’s optimistic outlook. A significant portion of the rapid growth in solar energy is currently occurring in China, which has unique advantages such as central planning and a distinct political structure that may not be replicable elsewhere. This rapid pace may not even be sustainable in China itself.
In the U.S., despite remarkable growth in solar energy in recent years, the industry now contends with challenges posed by the previous administration’s discontent towards renewable resources. Loss of tax credits that once leveled the playing field with subsidized fossil fuels and local opposition to solar projects also complicate future growth.
As McKibben acknowledges, both can be true: solar-driven energy transitions may be on the horizon, but reductions in emissions might not happen swiftly enough to avert further drastic impacts of global warming. “It won’t be easy, but it’s necessary,” he asserts. “We must cease burning, or we will face dire consequences.”
Personally, I resonate with this perspective—I’d much prefer to bask in the sunlight.
Preliminary assessments indicate that the decrease in clean energy funding in the bill dated July 4 could lead to billions of additional tons of CO2 emissions over the next decade if President Donald Trump, who enacted the law, were to approve it. The US is already falling short of its Paris Agreement commitment to halve emissions by 2030, and this sluggish pace further jeopardizes the nation’s efforts as the world’s second-largest emitter, following China.
“Other nations are reaping the benefits of enhanced investments in clean energy economies, while the US is regressing,” stated David Widowski from the World Resources Institute, an environmental advocacy organization, in a recent statement.
The cleaning method outlined in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” encompasses tax reductions and over $350 million in new military spending.
Republicans in Congress have integrated cuts to clean energy funding alongside significant reductions in affordable healthcare and welfare programs to balance their budget. Over the upcoming years, this law will terminate hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of tax incentives aimed at boosting low-emission energy sources established by the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration.
Researchers at Princeton University are modeling how policy alterations will influence the US energy system and emissions in the coming decade. They discovered that the passage of this law markedly hampered the anticipated decline in US greenhouse gas emissions set forth by Biden’s policies and effectively repealed the Inflation Reduction Act.
With a peak of approximately 6.6 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2005, US emissions were projected to decrease by around 17%, reaching an expected decline of about 25% by 2030. The newly implemented law now anticipates a mere 20% reduction for 2030.
A more significant disparity arises in 2035, when anticipated clean energy projects were supposed to be more prevalent. Researchers assert that under Biden’s initiatives, emissions were projected to plummet by 44% from 2005 levels. However, due to the new legislation, reductions will only be around 25%, leading to a disparity of 5 billion tons of CO2 each year.
The delay is likely to generate an excess of approximately 2 billion tons of emissions by 2030, compared to prior pledges made under the Paris Agreement. In 2035, US emissions are projected to be around 2.5 billion tons higher than the trajectory needed to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century.
This bill also revokes this year’s electric vehicle tax credit, which will cease to exist along with renewable energy credits for wind and solar by 2026. The credit for energy efficiency upgrades will also conclude in 2026.
Conversely, tax credits for other low-emission energy sources like nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy will continue until 2033. The law further preserves support for some innovative technologies favored by the fossil fuel sector, like tax credits for low-emission hydrogen production extending into 2028, and credits for capturing and removing CO2.
Environmental advocates have condemned the bill for its detrimental emissions implications, viewing it as counterproductive to the Trump administration’s agenda which aimed to reduce energy costs and advance American manufacturing.
“We urgently require cleaner and more affordable energy, but this legislation will impede the resurgence of American clean energy production and send valuable domestic manufacturing jobs overseas,” remarked Manish Bapna, from the Council for Defense of Natural Resources, a US-based advocacy group, in a statement.
US Republicans are advocating for the approval of significant spending legislation that contains measures to thwart states from implementing regulations on artificial intelligence. Experts caution that the unchecked expansion of AI could exacerbate the planet’s already perilous, overheating climates.
Research from Harvard University indicates that the industry’s massive energy consumption is finite, and carbon dioxide—amounting to around 1 billion tonnes according to the Guardian—is projected to be emitted in the US by AI over the next decade.
During this ten-year span, when Republicans aim to “suspend” state-level regulations on AI, there will be a substantial amount of electricity consumed in data centers for AI applications, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions in the US that surpass those of Japan. Every year, the emissions will be three times higher than those of the UK.
The actual emissions will rely on the efficiency of power plants and the degree of clean energy utilization in the coming years; however, the obstruction of regulations will also play a part, noted Genruka Guidi, a visiting scholar at Harvard’s School of Public Health.
“Restricting surveillance will hinder the shift away from fossil fuels and diminish incentives for more energy-efficient AI technologies,” Guidi stated.
“We often discuss what AI can do for us, but we rarely consider its impact on our planet. If we genuinely aim to leverage AI to enhance human welfare, we mustn’t overlook the detrimental effects on climate stability and public health.”
Donald Trump has declared that the United States will become the “world capital of artificial intelligence and crypto,” planning to eliminate safeguards surrounding AI development while dismantling regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
The “Big Beautiful” spending bill approved by Republicans in the House of Representatives would prevent states from adopting their own AI regulations, with the GOP-controlled Senate also likely to pass a similar version.
However, the unrestricted usage of AI may significantly undermine efforts to combat the climate crisis while increasing power usage from the US grid. The dependence on fossil fuels like gas and coal continues to grow. AI is particularly energy-intensive, with a single query on ChatGPT consuming about ten times more power than a Google search.
The carbon emissions from US data centers have increased threefold since 2018, with recent Harvard research indicating that the largest “hyperscale” centers constitute 2% of the nation’s electricity usage.
“AI is poised to transform our world,” states Manu Asthana, CEO of PJM Interconnection, the largest grid in the US. Predictions suggest that nearly all increases in future electricity demand will arise from data centers. Asthana asserts this will equate to adding a new home’s worth of electricity to the grid every five years.
Quick Guide
Please contact us about this story
show
The best public interest journalism relies on direct accounts from people of knowledge.
If you have anything to share about this subject, please contact us with a secret using the following methods:
Secure Messages in Guardian App
The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and implied within the routine activity that all Guardian mobile apps perform. This prevents observers from knowing you are in absolutely communication with us.
If you don’t already have the Guardian app, please download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select Secure Message.
For alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each, please refer to the guide at guardian.com/tips.
Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins
Meanwhile, the rapid escalation of AI is intensifying the recent rollback of climate pledges made by major tech companies. Last year, Google acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from AI have surged by 48% since 2019 due to its advances. In effect, the deeper AI penetrates, “reducing emissions may prove challenging.”
Supporters of AI, along with some researchers, contend that advancements in AI could aid the fight against climate change by enhancing the efficiency of grid management and other improvements. Others, however, remain skeptical. “It’s merely an operation for greenwashing, and it’s clear as day,” critiques Alex Hanna, research director at the Institute of Decentralized AI. “Much of what we’ve heard is absolutely ridiculous. Big tech is mortgaging the present for a future that may never materialize.”
So far, no states have definitive regulations regarding AI, but state lawmakers may be aiming to establish such rules, especially in light of diminished federal environmental regulations. This could prompt Congress to reevaluate the ban. “If you were anticipating federal regulations around data centers, that’s definitely off the table right now,” Hanna observed. “It’s rather surprising to observe everything.”
But Republican lawmakers are undeterred. The proposed moratorium on local regulations for states and AI recently cleared a significant hurdle in the Senate over the weekend, as I’ve determined that this ban will allow Trump taxes and megavilles to proceed. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, chairing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, has prohibited modifications to the language which would prevent spending bills from addressing “foreign issues.”
This clause entails a “temporary suspension” on regulations, substituting a moratorium. It additionally includes an extra $500 million to grant programs aimed at expanding nationwide broadband internet access, stipulating that states will not receive these funds should they attempt to regulate AI.
The suggestion to suspend AI regulations has raised significant alarm among Democrats. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, known for his climate advocacy, has indicated his readiness to propose amendments that would strip the bill of its “dangerous” provisions.
“The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence is already impacting our environment—raising energy prices for consumers, straining the grid’s capacity to maintain lighting, depleting local water resources, releasing toxic pollutants into our communities, and amplifying climate emissions,” Markey shared with the Guardian.
“But Republicans want to prohibit AI regulations for ten years, rather than enabling the nation to safeguard its citizenry and our planet. This is shortsighted and irresponsible.”
Massachusetts Assemblyman Jake Ochincross also labeled the proposal as “terrible and unpopular ideas.”
“I believe we must recognize that it is profoundly reckless to allow AI to swiftly and seamlessly fill various sectors such as healthcare, media, entertainment, and education while simultaneously imposing a ban on AI regulations for a decade,” he commented.
Some Republicans also oppose these provisions, including Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. The amendment to eliminate the suspension from the bill requires the backing of at least four Republican senators.
Hawley is reportedly ready to propose amendments to remove this provision later in the week if they are not ruled out beforehand.
Earlier this month, Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene admitted that she overlooked the provisions in the House’s bill, stating she would not support the legislation if she had been aware. Greene’s group, the Far-Right House Freedom Caucus, stands against the suspension of AI regulations.
The parents of the family were left devastated when their aspirations for change were dashed after they sought to safeguard their children in the Colorado Legislature last month and online activism targeting a drug dealer resulted in tragedy.
Among those parents was Lori Shot, who was instrumental in crafting the bill. Her 18-year-old daughter Annaly tragically took her own life in 2020 after engaging with content on TikTok and Instagram related to depression, anxiety, and suicide.
“When lawmakers sidestep votes and shift discussions to an insubstantial calendar date without accountability, it feels like a betrayal to us as parents.” “It’s a betrayal to my daughter and to all the other children we’ve lost.”
Had the law been enacted, it would have necessitated investigations and the removal of accounts engaged in gun and drug sales, or the sexual exploitation and human trafficking of minors on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. It also required a dedicated hotline for law enforcement and a 72-hour response timeframe for police inquiries, which would significantly increase obligations compared to current legal standards.
Additionally, the platforms would have had to report on the usage statistics of minors, including how often and for how long they interacted with content violating company policies. Several major tech firms have taken official stances regarding the bill. As noted in Colorado’s lobbying records, Meta’s long-time lobbying firm, Headwater Strategies, has registered its support for revising the bill. Conversely, Google and TikTok employed lobbyists to oppose it.
‘[Legislators] chose self-interest over the protection of children and families. ” Illustration: Andrei Cojocaru/Guardian
“We are deeply disheartened,” said Kim Osterman, whose 18-year-old son Max died in 2021. “[Legislators] prioritized their own interests over the safety of my children and family.”
Protection for Social Media Users (SB 25-086) passed both legislative chambers, only to be vetoed by Democrat Governor Jared Polis on April 24th. His veto was justified by concerns that the bill would “erode privacy, freedom, and innovation.” On April 25, the Colorado Senate voted to override the veto, but on April 28, the House chose to delay the vote until the end of the legislative session, effectively blocking the override and keeping the bill alive.
Originally, the bill had passed the Senate with a 29-6 margin and the House with a 46-18 margin. On April 25, the Senate voted 29-6 for an override, and lawmakers anticipated that the House would take up the matter later that day, believing that there was enough bipartisan support to successfully overturn the veto.
“It was a straightforward vote for people because our goal was clear: to safeguard children from the predatory practices of social media companies,” remarked Senator Lindsey Dorgerty, a Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill. She expressed her disappointment that House leaders chose to sidestep the vote on Friday.
Advocating parents blamed the failure of the bill on an unexpected 11-hour lobbying blitz by The Far Right Gun Owners Association in Colorado. Two state legislators and seven other legislative participants corroborated the parents’ claims.
An unprecedented last-minute campaign disrupts bipartisan consensus
The owner of Rocky Mountain Guns (RMGO) characterized the bill as government censorship related to the statute against “ghost guns” assembled from kits purchased online.
RMGO initiated an extensive social media and email campaign, rallying its 200,000 members to contact lawmakers and voice their opposition to the bill. Sources familiar with the workings of the Colorado State Capitol explained that the gun group’s outreach included social media and text campaigns that encouraged Republican constituents to reach out to their representatives in opposition.
“[Legislators] were inundated with calls and emails from activists. It was an all-out assault. A campaign declared, ‘This is a government censorship bill,'” they stated.
The group’s actions contributed to efforts preventing Republicans from backing the veto override, leading to the bill’s demise. According to ten individuals involved in the bill’s development and the legislative process, this lobbying effort appeared unexpectedly robust, fueled by organizations that had previously faced financial constraints. An anonymous source from the Colorado State Capitol shared insights with the Guardian, citing fears of retaliation from RMGO.
The House of Representatives postponed its vote until April 28th, providing RMGO time to amplify its campaign over the weekend. When lawmakers reconvened on Monday, the House voted 51-13 to delay the override until the legislative session concluded, effectively dissolving the effort.
“It was a coordinated full-scale attack proclaiming this as a government censorship bill.” Illustration: Andrei Cojocaru/Guardian
A significant text messaging initiative targeted registered Republican voters, alleging that the social media bill “forces platforms to enforce extensive surveillance of content shared on their platforms,” claiming violations of Colorado’s gun laws, and framing the legislation as an affront to First and Second Amendment rights, according to texts reviewed by the Guardian.
A recurring adversary
Established in 1996, RMGO claims a membership exceeding 200,000 activists. It is recognized as a far-right organization staunchly opposed to regulations on firearms. Dudley Brown, its founder and leader president of the National Gun Rights Association, diverges significantly from the perspective of the National Rifle Association (NRA). RMGO is criticized for employing tactics labeled as “bullying” and “extremist” against both Democrats and moderate Republicans. The group has not responded to requests for commentary regarding legislative measures.
RMGO is a well-known presence at the Colorado State Capitol, typically opposing gun control measures. Daugherty described their usual campaign tactics as “intimidating.” Following backlash for her involvement in a bill banning assault weapons earlier this year, she deactivated her social media account.
“While advocating for gun legislation at the Capitol, RMGO published images of me and other legislators on their website,” she noted. An RMGO tweet depicted Daugherty alongside a bold “Traitor” stamp.
The group disseminated misinformation regarding the bill’s implications on gun ownership, as reported by sources who participated in the legislative discussions.
“My support for the bill and the veto override stemmed from concerns about child trafficking and safeguarding children,” stated Republican Senator Rod Pelton, who voted in favor of overriding the veto in the Senate. “I did not subscribe to the entire argument pertaining to the second amendment.”
The bill garnered support from 23 district attorneys in Colorado as well as bipartisan backing from the state House of Representatives.
RMGO’s late-stage opposition to the social media bill deviated from its usual tactics. Typically, the organization weighs in on legislation early in the process, according to eight sources, including co-sponsors Daugherty and Representative Andy Boesenecker.
“Their surge of focused efforts caught my attention,” Boesenecker remarked. “It was curious to note that their resistance materialized so late in the process and appeared to be well-financed.”
In recent years, RMGO has experienced reduced activity attributed to financial difficulties that limited their legislative campaigning capacity. In a 2024 interview, the organization’s leader candidly acknowledged struggles with fundraising. Daugherty believes RMGO’s capacity for such a substantial outreach campaign would be unlikely without considerable funding. Others within Colorado’s political landscape echoed this sentiment.
“The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners had been largely ineffective in the legislature for several years due to financial constraints. Suddenly, they increased their influence, seemingly backed by substantial funds,” said Dawn Reinfeld, from a Colorado-based nonprofit focused on youth rights.
This context caused lawmakers to feel pressured, especially concerning primary elections in their districts, following RMGO’s recent social media attacks on supporters of the bill.
“The bill had given me hope that Avery’s legacy would make a difference, and its failure was incredibly disappointing.” Illustration: Andrei Cojocaru/Guardian
“There was a palpable concern among many about party affiliation; it certainly played a role,” remarked Dorgerty.
Aaron Ping’s 16-year-old son, Avery, passed away from an overdose in December after buying what he believed to be ecstasy on Snapchat, only to receive a substance laced with fentanyl instead. Ping viewed the organized opposition to the bill as a purposeful distortion.
“The narrative painted the bill as an infringement on gun rights, depicting it as merely a tool for targeting people purchasing illegal firearms online,” he stated.
Ping had testified in support of the bill alongside other families, recovering teens, and district attorneys back in February before the initial Senate vote.
“This bill carried the hope that Avery’s legacy would incite change; its rejection was truly disheartening,” Ping shared.
In the absence of federal action, states initiate online child safety legislation
A number of states, including California, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Nevada, have introduced legislation over the past two years aimed at enhancing online safety for minors. These initiatives encounter vigorous resistance from the technology sector, which includes extensive lobbying efforts and legal challenges.
Maryland successfully passed the Children’s Code bill in May 2024, marking it as the first state to enact such legislation. However, this victory may be short-lived. The high-tech industry coalition, NetChoice, representing companies such as Meta, Google, and Amazon, has already launched legal challenges against these measures.
In the meanwhile, federal efforts have stalled, with the Children’s Online Safety Act (KOSA) faltering in February after failing to pass the House despite years of modifications and deliberations. A newly revised version of the bill was reintroduced in Congress on May 14th.
California’s similar initiative, the age-appropriate design code law, which mirrors UK legislation, was halted in late 2023 following a NetChoice injunction citing potential First Amendment infringements.
Proposals for regulating artificial intelligence are lagging by at least a year as the UK minister aims to advance a significant bill addressing the use of this technology and its associated copyrighted content.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is set to present a “detailed” AI bill in the upcoming Congressional session to tackle pressing issues, including safety and copyright concerns.
This delay in regulation raises concerns ahead of the next King’s speech. While no date has been confirmed for this event, some reports suggest it may occur in May 2026.
Initially, Labour had intended to introduce a concise, targeted AI bill shortly after taking office, focusing specifically on large-scale language models like CHATGPT.
The proposed legislation would have mandated companies to provide their models for assessment by the UK AI Security Institute, aiming to address fears that advanced AI models might pose threats to humanity.
However, with the bill behind schedule, the minister has opted to align with the approach of Donald Trump’s administration in the US, fearing that excessive regulations might dissuade AI companies from the UK.
Now, the minister is eager to incorporate copyright regulations for AI firms within the AI bill.
“We believe this framework can help us tackle copyright issues,” a government source commented. “We’ve been consulting with both creators and tech experts, and we’ve uncovered some intriguing ideas for the future. Once the data bill is finalized, our efforts will begin in earnest.”
The government is currently facing a dispute with the House over copyright provisions in a separate data bill. AI companies can utilize copyrighted materials for model training unless the rights holders opt out.
This has led to a strong backlash from the creative community, with notable artists like Elton John, Paul McCartney, and Kate Bush lending their support to a campaign against these changes.
Recently, Piers backed an amendment to the data bill that would require AI companies to declare whether they are using copyrighted materials for model training, ensuring compliance with existing copyright laws.
Despite Kyle’s expressed concerns over the government’s approach, he has resisted calls to backtrack. The government contends that the data bill does not adequately address copyright matters and has vowed to publish an economic impact evaluation alongside several technical papers on copyright and AI.
In a letter to legislators on Saturday, Kyle further pledged to create a cross-party working group on AI and copyright.
Beevan Kidron, a film director and crossbench peer advocating for the creative sector, remarked on Friday that the minister “has neglected the creative industry and disregarded Britain’s second-largest industrial sector.”
Kyle mentioned in Commons last month that AI and copyright should be included in another “comprehensive” legislative package.
An overwhelming majority of the UK populace (88%) believes the government should have the authority to halt AI product usage if deemed a significant risk. This finding was published in March by the ADA Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, which shows that over 75% of people feel that safety oversight for AI should be managed by governments or regulators, alongside private companies.
Scott Singer, an AI specialist at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted: “The UK is strategically navigating between the US and the EU. Similar to the US, the UK is aiming to avoid overly stringent regulations that could stifle innovation while exploring meaningful consumer protection methods.”
Elon Musk has openly criticized Donald Trump’s tax plan, asserting that the US president’s financial strategy undermines the cost-saving initiatives implemented by Tesla executives.
These comments from the billionaire entrepreneur were shared with CBS during a comprehensive interview set to air this weekend on Sunday morning. Previews shared on social media included his sentiment saying, “I’m disappointed after witnessing the enormous spending bill that will escalate the fiscal deficit, harming the efforts of the Doge team.”
Musk has been at the helm of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) since January. He later informed that he would step back from the Trump administration in April following a significant drop in Tesla’s revenue.
The proposal now seems to resonate with one major piece of Trump’s legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives last week.
The legislation fulfills several of Trump’s campaign promises, including extending tax cuts for individuals and corporations while eliminating clean energy incentives established by Joe Biden.
However, the bill also allocates funds for the construction of barriers along the US-Mexico border and includes measures for the large-scale deportation of undocumented immigrants. The Non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the bill will contribute approximately $2.3 trillion (£1.7 trillion) to the deficit, even after considering the tax cuts.
This comment fuels speculation about a potential rift growing between the billionaire and the president, whom Musk financially supported last year. Altogether, Musk’s Super Political Action Committee contributed $200 million (£148 million) to Trump’s presidential campaign before the elections in November.
Donald Trump represents the forefront of these funding cuts, but the harsh realities of his administration are just part of the narrative. Following a surge in the 2000s, contributions to global health stagnated throughout the 2010s. The landscape of charitable giving has also shifted notably in the era of pledges. The wealthiest individuals globally have committed to donating over half of their fortunes to various causes. After Gates’ divorce in 2021, Melinda eventually departed the foundation to pursue her own philanthropic endeavors. Recently, long-time ally Warren Buffett announced his plan to channel most of his remaining wealth into a charitable trust; his children will manage this, and he will not provide any additional funds to the Gates Foundation beyond his passing. Following a slowdown after the Covid years, this year saw a decline in foreign aid—Mark Suzman, CEO of the Gates Foundation, recently wrote in The Economist about falling aid levels, describing it as “falling off a cliff.”
On the ground, progress has been uneven, particularly in the aftermath of the pandemic emergency, which led to the suspension of many routine vaccination programs, leaving the world’s poorest nations in severe debt distress. While the proportion of the global population living in extreme poverty fell by nearly three-quarters from 1990 to 2014, that progress has stalled since then.
This is the crucial moment to reflect on Gates and his team’s narrative—given the gap between post-pandemic setbacks and the challenges posed by Trump’s policies, the Gates Foundation will emphasize once more the potential of biomedical tools and life-saving innovations in the current development landscape, including advancements in AI. They envision a future where the Gates Foundation is no longer needed. This vision is undeniably attractive. But with the challenges ahead, can it truly be realized?
During two days in late April, I engaged in discussions with Gates about the current state and legacy of his philanthropy, reviewing both accomplishments and setbacks thus far, as well as the challenges yet to come. Below is a revised, condensed account of those conversations, capturing his optimistic, detailed, confident, and at times bold perspective as he describes the coming decades as an “era of miracles,” representing even more fundamental advancements than he has previously cited.
I. “Millions of Additional Child Deaths”
Let’s discuss the current tensions surrounding the Trump administration. It appears that the administration is poised to abandon foreign aid entirely, leaving millions of people and many global institutions in jeopardy. How dire is this situation?
The minister proposed concessions regarding copyright modifications to address the concerns of artists and creators ahead of a crucial vote in Congress next week, according to the Guardian.
The government is dedicated to conducting economic impact assessments for the proposed copyright changes and releasing reports on matters like data accessibility for AI developers.
These concessions aim to alleviate worries among Congress members and the creative sector regarding the government’s planned reforms to copyright regulations.
Prominent artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard have rallied behind a campaign opposing a range of high-profile intervention changes. Elton John remarked that the reforms “will expand traditional copyright laws that safeguard artists’ livelihoods.”
The Minister intends to permit AI companies to utilize copyrighted works for model training without acquiring permission, unless the copyright holder opts out. Creatives argue this favors AI firms and expresses a desire to adhere to existing copyright laws.
The government’s pledge will be reflected in amendments to the data bill, which will serve as a key instrument for advocates opposing the proposed changes and is scheduled to be discussed in the Commons next Wednesday.
The initiative has already faced criticism. Crossbench peer and activist Beevan Kidron stated that the minister’s amendments would not “meet the moment” and indicated that the Liberal Democrats would propose their revisions to compel AI companies to comply with current copyright laws.
British composer Ed Newton Rex, a notable opponent of the government’s proposal, argued there is “extensive evidence” suggesting that the changes “are detrimental for creators.” He added that no impact assessment was needed to convey this.
Ahead of next week’s vote, Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle sought to establish rapport within the creative community.
During a meeting with music industry stakeholders this week, Kyle acknowledged that his focus on engaging with the tech sector has frustrated creatives. He faced backlash after holding over 20 meetings with tech representatives but none with those from the creative sector.
Kyle further stirred criticism by stating at the conference that AI companies might choose to relocate to countries like Saudi Arabia unless the UK revamps its copyright framework. This was not discussed at a Downing Street meeting with MPs this week.
Government insiders assert that AI firms are already based abroad and emphasize that if the UK does not reform its laws, creatives may lack avenues to challenge the exploitation of materials by overseas companies.
According to government sources, the minister has not established an opt-out system and maintains “a much broader and more open-minded perspective.”
However, Labour lawmakers contend that the minister “has not proven any substantial job growth in return” and is yielding to American interests. They criticize this as, at best, outsourcing and, at worst, total exploitation.
Kidron, who has successfully amended the Lords’ data bill while opposing the government’s reforms, remarked, “The moment is not right for pushing the issue into the long grass with reports and reviews.”
“I ask the government why they neglect to protect UK property rights, fail to recognize the growth potential of UK creative industries, and ignore British AI companies that express concerns over favoritism towards firms based in China,” she stated.
James Fris, a Labour member of the Culture, Media and Sports Selection Committee who facilitated discussions on the matter this month, asserted, “The mission of the creative sector cannot equate to submission to the tech industry.”
Kidron’s amendments, aimed at making AI companies accountable under UK copyright laws regardless of location, were withdrawn in the Commons, but the Liberal Democrats plan to reintroduce them next week.
The Liberal Democrats’ proposal includes a requirement for AI model developers (the technology that supports AI systems like chatbots) to adhere to UK copyright laws and clarify the copyrighted materials incorporated during development.
The Liberal Democrat amendment also demands transparency regarding the web crawlers used by AI companies, referring to the technology that gathers data from the Internet for AI models.
Victoria Collins, spokesperson for Liberal Democrat Technology, stated:
“Next week in the Commons, we will work to prevent AI copyright laws from being diluted and push Parliament to urge lawmakers to stand with us in support of UK creators.”
After facing opposition from education secretaries Peter Kyle and Bridget Phillipson, the bill seeking to ban addictive smartphone algorithms targeting young teenagers was weakened.
The Safer Phone Bill, introduced by Labour MP Josh McAllister, is set to be discussed in the Commons on Friday. Despite receiving support from various MPs and child protection charities, the government has opted to further investigate the issue rather than implement immediate changes.
Government sources indicate that the new proposal will be accepted, as the original bill put forward by McAllister did not receive ministerial support.
The government believes more time is needed to assess the impact of mobile phones on teenagers and to evaluate emerging technologies that can control the content produced by phone companies.
Peter Kyle opposes the major bill, which would have been the second online safety law some advocates were hoping for.
Although not fundamentally against government intervention on this issue, a source close to Kyle mentioned that the work is still in its early stages.
The original proposal included requirements for social media companies to exclude young teens from their algorithms and limit addictive content for those under 16. However, these measures were removed from the final bill.
Another measure to ban mobile phones in schools was also dropped after objections from Bridget Phillipson, who believes schools should self-regulate. There are uncertainties regarding potential penalties for violations.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has been vocal about addressing the issue of addictive smartphones, publicly supporting McAllister’s bill.
The revised Private Membership Bill instructs Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty to investigate the health impacts of smartphone use.
McAllister hopes that the bill will prompt the government to address addictive smartphone use among children more seriously, rather than just focusing on harmful or illegal content.
If the Minister commits to adopting the new measures as anticipated, McAllister will not push for a vote on the bill.
The government has pledged to “publish a research plan on the impact of social media use on children” and seek advice from the UK’s chief medical officer on parents’ management of their children’s smartphone and social media usage.
Polls indicate strong public support for measures restricting young people’s use of social media, with a majority favoring a ban on social media for those under 16.
tHe mystery surrounding William Henry Gates III is well-preserved. This book delves into the early years of Gates, from his birth in 1955 to the founding of Microsoft in 1975. The sequel will reveal the next chapter of his story.
The title of the book aptly captures its essence. In the era when only humans wrote computer programs, “source code” referred to the code that powered the programs. Understanding a programming language enabled one to decipher the workings of a computer program.
What can we learn from studying Gates’ journey? Essentially, it narrates the tale of a fortunate young man. He had supportive parents who provided him with the right environment to grow emotionally and intellectually. However, he faced internal battles due to his high IQ, rebellious nature, and anxiety.
Reflecting on his upbringing, Gates acknowledges the challenges he faced in social settings and how his parents supported him. He attended a progressive private school that nurtured his talents.
Notably, Gates and his friends had access to a computer in the 1960s, which was rare at the time. This early exposure to computing led them to develop software and write programs for companies in their region.
Gates’ journey took him to Harvard, where his programming skills stood out. He dabbled with a December PDP-10 but shifted focus when Allen discovered a new microcomputer based on Intel’s 8080 processor.
Together, Gates and Allen ventured into the world of software development, leading to the establishment of Microsoft. Their early success paved the way for future accomplishments.
The book hints at Gates’ institutional expansion and legal battles, setting the stage for what’s to come in the next volume.
Gates in 1983. Photo: DOUG WILSON/CORBIS/Getty Images
The book provides valuable insights into Gates’ formative years, shedding light on his complex personality. His early struggles and triumphs set the stage for his future endeavors.
One of the defining moments in Gates’ life was the tragic loss of his best friend and programming partner, Kent Evans. This loss deeply impacted Gates and influenced his career trajectory.
In a poignant moment, Gates reflects on his conversations with Evans’ father and imagines what could have been if Evans had lived. Their shared vision laid the foundation for what would become Microsoft.
Elon Musk utilizes his social media platforms and threat to spend millions against Republicans in primaries to advocate for a bipartisan Congressional spending bill to keep the government running, but the bill was diluted. House Republicans rushed to create a new deal after Musk’s initial failure. The revised agreement provided funding for several months while suspending the debt limit at Trump’s request, but it did not pass in the House of Representatives.
Musk, the world’s richest man, played a significant role in the 2024 election, supporting Trump and spreading right-wing rumors. He criticized the spending bill on social media, misrepresenting its contents and impact. Trump and Vice President-elect Vance opposed the bill, but Musk’s public opposition was more prominent.
Musk urged the public to contact legislators to defeat the bill and celebrated its failure as a victory for the people. While he has no formal role in the Trump administration, he wields significant influence over the party and future president through his organization.
The incident exemplifies Musk’s influential role in using social media to attack opponents and influence public opinion. He vowed that no legislation should pass until Trump takes office and pledged to hold dishonest politicians accountable.
Congressional Republicans largely supported Musk, with Senator Rand Paul suggesting him as Speaker of the House. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene also expressed openness to the idea. Democrats criticized Musk’s influence and power, with Congressman Pocan creating images depicting Musk controlling Trump.
Musk spread misinformation about the bill, falsely claiming lawmakers would receive a significant pay raise. Fact-checks have disproven these claims, but Musk continued to mislead on social media. Republican Rep. Crenshaw was also caught in rumors about a pay increase, which he denied.
Musk responded to Crenshaw’s claims, emphasizing that Congress should only give raises with a balanced budget. Crenshaw advised Musk to verify sources before amplifying misleading information.
Being vulnerable, open, and risking rejection come with a price when putting yourself out there. Today, that price can be substantial.
Beyond just the cost of drinks and dinner, you may have already invested hundreds of pounds in a dating site to secure a date before even starting the awkward dance of who foots the bill.
How much does the app cost?
While some dating services are free, many now offer attractive add-ons for a small fee to help you find more compatible connections, get noticed faster, and get more dates. We’ve looked into what the main ones offer.
crater
Tinder is free, but you can upgrade to a paid version “to enhance your Tinder experience,” according to the website.
Photo: Martin Bülow/AFP/Getty Images
Tinder is free, but you can upgrade to a paid version for an enhanced experience, with prices starting at £7 per month and going up to around £50 according to their press team.
There are three subscription tiers (Plus, Gold, and Platinum) offered at varying prices. Plus options range from £4.99 to £19.94 per month in 2021, gold ranges from £13.99 to £29.49, and platinum from £18.14 to £36.49.
Different users may be charged different prices based on factors like age, as revealed by a survey by a consumer group “Which?”.
hinge
The free version of Hinge allows eight likes and messages to matches per day. Two paid subscriptions promise double the dates.
Hinge+ costs £14.99 per week, £24.99 per month, £49.99 for three months, and £74.99 for six months.
HingeX costs £24.99 per week, £44.99 per month, £89.99 for three months, and £129.99 for six months.
With Gold membership, it takes an average of 3 months to find a partner and leave Muzz.
Photo: Mikhailo Polenok/Alamy
Legislation supported by Labor, the Conservative Party, and child protection experts will require social media companies to exclude teenagers from algorithms intended to reduce content addiction in under-16s. This new Safer Telephones Bill, introduced by Labor MPs, prioritizes reviewing mobile phone sales to teenagers and potentially implementing additional safeguards for under-16s. Health Secretary Wes Street voiced support for the bill, citing the negative impact of smartphone addiction on children’s mental health.
The bill, championed by Labor MP Josh McAllister, is receiving positive feedback from ministers, although there is hesitation around banning mobile phone sales to teens. With backing from former Conservative education secretary Kit Malthouse and education select committee chair Helen Hayes, the bill aims to address concerns about children’s excessive screen time and exposure to harmful content.
Mr. McAllister’s bill, which focuses on protecting children from online dangers, will be debated by ministers this week. The bill includes measures to raise the Internet age of majority to 16 and give regulatory powers to Ofcom for children’s online safety. The proposed legislation has garnered support from various stakeholders including former children’s minister Claire Coutinho and children’s charities.
Concerns about the impact of smartphones on children’s well-being have prompted calls for stricter regulations on access to addictive online content. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer is against a blanket ban on mobile phones for under-16s, there are ongoing discussions about how to ensure children’s safety online without restricting necessary access to technology.
The bill aims to regulate online platforms and mobile phone sales to protect young people from harmful content and addiction. Mr. McAllister’s efforts in promoting children’s digital well-being have garnered significant support from policymakers and child welfare advocates.
As the government considers the implications of the bill and the Online Safety Act, which is currently pending full implementation, efforts to protect children from online risks continue to gain momentum. It remains crucial to strike a balance between enabling technology access and safeguarding children from potential online harms.
Apple has lost its high-profile 13 billion euro (11 billion pounds) Irish tax battle with the EU, but the ruling will bolster efforts by the European Commission to crack down on “preferential” tax regimes favoring multinational companies.
The long-awaited ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) came after a years-long legal battle over whether the European Commission was right in 2016 to demand the return of 13 billion euros of “illegal” tax breaks given to Apple for giving the iPhone maker an unfair advantage.
ECJ (European Court of Justice) The verdict was given The Commission argued that a lower court ruling in favor of Apple should be overturned, upholding a 2016 European Commission decision that found Ireland had provided unlawful assistance to Apple in the tax treatment of profits from Apple’s activities outside the United States and that Ireland was required to recoup the money.
In 2020, a lower court, the General Court, annulled the 2016 European Commission decision, finding that it had not been sufficiently established that Apple’s subsidiaries enjoyed a selective advantage. That ruling has now been set aside by the European Court of Justice, which has confirmed the European Commission’s 2016 decision.
The ruling was a victory for EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who concluded: 2016 The iPhone maker benefited from billions of dollars worth of unfair tax breaks from the Irish government.
Vestager, who is due to step down this year, has been seen as a tough enforcer who has boldly taken on powerful multinationals such as Fiat, Amazon and Starbucks over their tax claims. But some of the cases have not stood the test of time, with a 2022 ruling against Fiat that was later overturned.
The case brings to an end a years-long legal battle that began in 2016 when the European Commission ordered Apple to pay billions of euros for significant underpayment of tax on profits from 2003 to 2014. Apple, which has had its European headquarters in Cork since 1980, was found by the EU’s competition watchdog to have benefited from a tax ruling by Irish authorities and to have paid an effective tax rate of 0.005 percent in 2014.
Apple has denied the accusations, saying the government aid money had not been paid, and CEO Tim Cook said: It is called The claim is “political nonsense.”
Apple challenged the Commission at the General Court, the EU’s second-highest court, and won. Conclusion In July 2020, Brussels ruled that Apple had failed to prove that it had obtained an illegal economic benefit in terms of tax in Ireland.
The Commission appealed, and last year the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, Giovanni Pitruzzella, recommended that the Commission overturn the General Court’s earlier ruling. Advocate General Pitruzzella said the General Court had made an error of law and needed to carry out a new assessment. He recommended that the European Court of Justice remit the case back to the General Court for a new ruling on the substance of the case.
Pitruzella’s recommendation was not legally binding and did not have to be followed by the ECJ, but the attorney general’s opinion carries great weight and usually influences the court’s final decision.
Following the ECJ ruling, Apple said: “This case is not about how much tax we pay, but which government we owe tax to. We have always paid all taxes wherever we do business and have never had any special arrangements. Apple is a driver of growth and innovation in Europe and around the world, and we are proud to have consistently been one of the world’s largest taxpayers.”
“The European Commission is seeking to change the rules retroactively, ignoring the fact that our income is already subject to tax in the United States under international tax law. We are disappointed by today’s decision because the European Court of Justice previously reviewed the facts and invalidated this case in its entirety.”
Meanwhile, the ECJ It also ruled He upheld the 2.4 billion euro fine imposed by the European Commission against Google in an antitrust case. Whether Google falsely favored its online shopping service. In this case, the Attorney General said In January, the ECJ ruled that Google’s appeal should be dismissed.
Google said: “We are disappointed with the court’s decision, which concerns very specific facts. We made changes in 2017 to comply with the European Commission’s decision. Our approach has been successful for more than seven years, generating billions of clicks across over 800 comparison shopping services.”
Bill Gates argues that artificial intelligence will assist, not hinder, in achieving climate goals, despite concerns about new data centers depleting green energy supplies.
The philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder stated that AI could enhance technology and power grids’ efficiency, enabling countries to reduce energy consumption even with the need for more data centers.
Gates reassured that AI’s impact on the climate is manageable, contrary to fears that AI advancements might lead to increased energy demand and reliance on fossil fuels.
“Let’s not exaggerate this,” Gates emphasized. “Data centers contribute an additional 6% in energy demand at most. But it’s likely around 2% to 2.5%. The key is whether AI can accelerate the reduction to 6% or beyond. The answer is, ‘Definitely.’
Goldman Sachs estimates that AI chatbot tool ChatGPT’s electricity consumption for processing queries is nearly ten times more than a Google search, potentially causing carbon dioxide emissions from data centers to double between 2022 and 2030.
Experts project that developed countries, which have seen energy consumption decline due to efficiency, could experience up to a 10% rise in electricity demand from the growth of AI data centers.
In a conference hosted by his venture fund Breakthrough Energy, Gates told reporters in London that the additional energy demand from AI data centers is likely to be offset by investments in green electricity, as tech companies are willing to pay more for clean energy sources.
Breakthrough Energy has supported over 100 companies involved in the energy transition. Gates is heavily investing in AI through the Gates Foundation Trust, which has allocated about a third of its $77 billion assets into Microsoft.
However, Gates’ optimism about AI’s potential to reduce carbon emissions aligns with peer-reviewed papers, suggesting that generative AI could significantly lower CO2 emissions by simplifying tasks like writing and creating illustrations.
AI is already influencing emissions directly, as demonstrated by Google using deep learning techniques to reduce data center cooling costs by 40% and decrease overall electricity usage by 15% for non-IT tasks.
Despite these advancements, concerns remain about the carbon impact of AI, with Microsoft acknowledging that its indirect emissions are increasing due to building new data centers around the world.
Gates cautioned that the world could miss its 2050 climate goals by up to 15 years if the transition to green energy is delayed, hindering efforts to decarbonize polluting sectors and achieve net-zero emissions by the target year.
He expressed concerns that the required amount of green electricity may not be delivered in time for the transition, making it challenging to meet the zero emissions goal by 2050.
Gates’ warning follows a global report indicating a rise in renewable energy alongside fossil fuel consumption, suggesting that meeting climate goals requires accelerated green energy adoption.
The House of Representatives passed a bill requiring TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the platform or risk a complete ban in the US. The Senate quickly followed suit, and the bill was signed by Joe Biden the next day.
This move poses a significant threat to TikTok in the US, especially since a previous ban in Montana was ruled unconstitutional and never enforced.
Here’s what you need to know about the bill, the possibility of a TikTok ban, and its implications for the platform’s 170 million US users.
Is the US really trying to ban TikTok and why?
The bill passed by the House is part of an ongoing political battle over TikTok, a platform that has seen massive growth since its launch in 2017. Lawmakers are concerned about data privacy and censorship issues related to TikTok’s Chinese parent company.
Despite TikTok’s assurances about data storage and access, lawmakers remain skeptical, leading to the recent legislation.
Various attempts to regulate TikTok in the US have been made, culminating in the recent bill passing in the House.
Does this bill really ban TikTok?
Under the bill, ByteDance must divest from TikTok within 165 days to avoid a ban. App stores could face penalties for hosting TikTok if the divestiture does not occur.
Supporters argue the bill offers ByteDance an opportunity to avoid a ban by selling TikTok to non-Chinese companies.
TikTok disputes this, claiming uncertainty about the sale’s approval and completion within the specified timeframe.
How did we get here?
Past bans and restrictions on TikTok, including efforts by former President Trump, have laid the groundwork for the current situation. Montana and other states have previously attempted bans, but legal challenges have prevented enforcement.
Recent demands from the Treasury Department raised concerns, leading to the development of the current bill.
How will the TikTok ban be enforced?
Enforcing a ban on TikTok faces technical and legal challenges due to the decentralized nature of the internet. Methods like blocking IP addresses could be circumvented using VPNs.
To fully restrict TikTok, the US would need to adopt stringent internet restrictions used by countries like China.
Who supports a possible TikTok ban?
Most Republicans and the Biden administration back the bill, with President Trump’s stance evolving over time. Efforts to ban TikTok have garnered bipartisan support.
Despite some opposition, the bill’s supporters believe it is crucial for national security and data privacy concerns.
Who opposes the TikTok bill?
TikTok vehemently opposes the bill and urges the Senate to reject it. Some lawmakers and civil rights groups argue the bill threatens free speech rights and could set a dangerous precedent.
Opponents of the bill emphasize the need for comprehensive social media regulation rather than targeting specific platforms like TikTok.
What will happen to TikTok in the future?
The bill still faces hurdles in the Senate, and its enforcement could be complex. TikTok’s lobbying efforts and legal challenges could impact the bill’s implementation.
Even if passed, legal challenges may arise, similar to previous bans that were blocked on constitutional grounds.
TikTok has announced its intention to challenge any ban or requirement for the app’s sale in the United States through legal means, following the passing of a bill by the House of Representatives that targets the popular video platform.
Uncertainty looms over the company’s future in the United States after lawmakers in Washington approved a bill that would mandate the sale of a stake in TikTok’s U.S. operations by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or face a ban.
The bill, part of a foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, was passed by the House with a vote of 360-58 on Saturday and will now be presented to the Senate for further consideration. President Joe Biden has expressed his support for the bill.
Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of public policy for the Americas, informed employees via a memo after the vote that the bill is deemed unconstitutional, and TikTok intends to challenge it in court.
Beckerman stated in the memo, initially reported by a technology news website, that the bill infringes on the First Amendment, which safeguards free speech rights, and vowed to pursue legal action once the bill is signed into law.
Arguments on the basis of the First Amendment have previously worked in TikTok’s favor in the U.S. In a ruling last year, a district judge in Montana blocked a state ban on TikTok, citing violations of users’ free speech rights. The judge found that the ban exceeded the state’s authority and violated constitutional rights.
TikTok has faced scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and other Western officials, including those in the UK, over concerns that user data could be accessed by the Chinese government. While TikTok denies such requests from Beijing, critics fear ByteDance may be compelled to share data with Chinese security services under the country’s laws.
The House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday mandating that ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, must sell the social media platform or face a complete ban in the United States.
The vote resulted in overwhelming support, with 352 members of Congress voting in favor and only 65 voting against. The bill, which was swiftly approved in committee last week, gives ByteDance 165 days to divest from TikTok. Failure to do so would result in app stores like the Apple App Store and Google Play being legally prohibited from hosting TikTok or providing web hosting services for ByteDance-managed applications.
Following the vote, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew expressed disappointment and stated that the company is doing everything possible to protect the platform’s integrity and enforce their legal rights.
Chew emphasized TikTok’s efforts to secure data and shield the platform from external influences, raising concerns about the implications of the bill on other social media companies, creators, and small businesses.
The decision in the House of Representatives marks a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding TikTok’s alleged data collection practices and potential political censorship. Despite assurances from TikTok that they do not share U.S. user data with the Chinese government, challenges persist, including past bans and legal battles.
The future of the bill in the Senate remains uncertain, as some Democrats have raised free speech concerns and proposed broader social media regulations to address foreign influence concerns without singling out TikTok specifically.
The White House supports the bill, aiming to provide a pathway for ByteDance to sell TikTok and mitigate national security risks associated with Chinese ownership. The authors of the bill stress that the goal is not to ban TikTok outright but to facilitate its sale to circumvent the block in the U.S.
While the outcome of the bill continues to unfold, TikTok and its supporters remain steadfast in advocating for the platform’s survival, raising uncertainties about China’s approval of a potential sale and the timeline for such a transaction.
As the debate continues, concerns persist about the impact of the bill on other Chinese-owned platforms in the U.S., such as Tencent’s WeChat. The discussions reflect broader efforts to address national security and privacy considerations in the social media landscape.
The Florida Senate has passed a bill that would prevent cities and counties from enforcing mandatory water breaks or other workplace safety measures for extreme heat.
With a 28-11 vote along party lines, the Republican-controlled Senate approved Senate Bill 1492, which would prohibit local governments from setting workplace heat standards higher than federal requirements. This means that cities and counties would no longer have the authority to mandate water breaks or shade breaks for workers during the day.
The legislation was introduced in response to the record-breaking heat in 2023, which resulted in prolonged heat waves and high temperatures in the southern United States. Climate experts attributed the extreme heat to global warming.
Proponents of Senate Bill 1492 argue that uniform regulations are necessary to avoid inconsistent rules across the state.
However, labor organizations argue that workplace heat standards are vital for protecting workers, particularly those in industries like construction and agriculture that require outdoor work.
Similar to a law in Texas, the bill in Florida would prevent local governments from implementing ordinances that mandate outdoor workers to take breaks for water or shade.
According to the National Weather Service, heat-related incidents cause more deaths in the U.S. than any other weather event, with outdoor workers at higher risk. The bill would also prohibit local heat protection measures such as training programs and record-keeping related to heat exposure.
While companies must adhere to OSHA’s general workplace safety regulations, there are currently no specific federal guidelines addressing extreme heat hazards.
The bill is pending final approval in the House of Representatives before reaching Governor Ron DeSantis. If signed, it will take effect on July 1st.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
