Major Revelation: Amazon Web Services Outage Highlights UK Government’s £1.7 Billion Reliance on Tech Giant

Amazon’s CEO Andy Jassy wore a broad smile while meeting Keir Starmer in the gardens of Downing Street to announce a £40bn investment in the UK this past June. Starmer shared his enthusiasm, stating, “equally passionate”. He remarked, “This transaction demonstrates that our transformation strategy to attract investment, stimulate growth, and enhance people’s financial well-being is succeeding.”

However, just four months later, the company faced a massive global outage on Monday that halted thousands of businesses and underscored its reliance on Amazon Web Services (AWS), the cloud computing platform utilized by the British government.

Data gathered for the Guardian indicates that the UK government is increasingly dependent on the services of U.S. tech giants. These companies have come under fire from trade unions and politicians for their working conditions in logistics and online retail.

Since 2016, AWS has secured 189 contracts with the UK government valued at £1.7bn and has billed approximately £1.4bn during this timeframe, according to data from public procurement intelligence firm Tassel.

The research group reported: “Currently, 35 public sector authorities utilize AWS services across 41 contracts totaling £1.1bn. The primary ministries involved include the Home Office, DWP, HMRC, the Ministry of Justice, Cabinet Office, and Defra.

Screenshot of the out-of-service HMRC website on Monday, October 20th. Photo: HMRC.gov.uk/PA

Tim Wright, a technology partner at law firm Floodgate, noted that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) have consistently warned about the risks associated with concentrating cloud services for regulated enterprises.

“Recent efforts by the Treasury, the PRA, and the FCA to impose direct oversight on ‘significant third parties’ aim to mitigate the risk of outages like those faced by AWS,” he said. “However, until we see substantial diversification and the establishment of sovereign clouds, the UK government’s approach contradicts the resilience principles that regulators advocate for.”

The House of Commons Treasury Committee has reached out to Chancellor of the Exchequer Lucy Rigby to inquire why Amazon wasn’t classified as a “significant third party” within the UK financial services sector, a designation that would have subjected the tech giant to regulatory scrutiny.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Committee Chair Meg Hillier noted that Amazon recently informed the committee that its financial services clients rely on AWS for “resilience” and that AWS offers “layers of protection.”

This week’s outage impacted over 2,000 businesses around the globe, leading to 8.1 million reports of issues, with 1.9 million in the U.S., 1 million in the UK, and 418,000 in Australia, according to internet outage tracker Downdetector.

Only HMRC confirmed it was affected by the outage, stating customers were “experiencing difficulties accessing our online services” and recommended they call back later due to busy phone lines.

While many websites restored their services after a few hours, some continued to experience problems throughout the day. By Monday evening, Amazon announced that all cloud services had “returned to normal operations.”

Trade unions have long questioned whether Amazon should be excluded from government contracts because of its reputation for subpar working conditions in its large warehouses.

Andy Prendergast, national secretary of the GMB union, stated: “Amazon has a dismal record regarding fair treatment of workers. Shocking conditions in their warehouses have resulted in emergency ambulance calls, with employees claiming they are treated like robots, forced to work until exhaustion, all while being compensated with poverty wages until they strike for six months.”

“In this context, wasting nearly £2 billion of public funds is deplorable.”

AWS has not provided a comment. A spokesperson from Amazon’s fulfillment centers stated that the “vast majority” of ambulance calls at their facilities are not “work-related.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Are Governments Wasting Billions on Their Own “Sovereign” AI Technology?

In Singapore, a government-funded artificial intelligence model
Converse in 11 languages spans from Indonesian to Lao. In Malaysia,
ilm chat
developed by a local construction conglomerate, claims it “knows which Georgetown you’re referring to.” Thus, it’s not a private university in the US, but the capital of Penang. Conversely, the Swiss Apertus
announced in September
that it can differentiate when to use “ss” in Swiss German instead of the “ß” used in standard German.


Globally, language models like these are integral to an AI arms race valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
dollars
Much of this is led by a few dominant companies in the US and China. As OpenAI, Meta,
Alibaba, and others invest billions in building more advanced models, middle powers and developing nations are closely monitoring the landscape and often making significant commitments of their own.

These initiatives are part of a movement loosely termed “sovereign AI,” where nations from the UK to India to Canada aim to create their own AI solutions and establish their positioning within this evolving ecosystem.

Yet, with hundreds of billions in play globally, can smaller investments yield substantial returns?

“U.S.-based firms, the U.S. government, and China can practically storm ahead in AI development, making it challenging for smaller nations,” noted Trisha Ray, a senior researcher at the Atlantic Council, a U.S.-based strategic think tank.

“Unless you’re a wealthy government or major corporation, creating a large language model from scratch is a considerable burden.”

Defense Concerns

Nonetheless, numerous countries are hesitant to depend on foreign AI for their requirements.

India, the second-largest market for OpenAI, has recorded over 100 million ChatGPT downloads in recent years. However, Abhishek Upperwal, founder of
Socket AI, highlights several instances where U.S.-made AI systems have fallen short. For example, a deployed AI agent intended to educate students in a remote Telangana village communicates in English but with a heavy, nearly incomprehensible American accent, while an Indian legal startup’s effort to adapt Meta’s LLaMa AI model encountered barriers, resulting in a mixed bag of U.S.-Indian legal advice, Upperwal explains.

There are also looming national security concerns. For India’s defense sector, any Chinese deep learning model is considered off-limits, according to Upperwal. “This could encompass untrustworthy training data claiming that Ladakh isn’t a part of India… Utilizing such a model in a defense context is absolutely unacceptable.”

“I’ve spoken with individuals involved in defense,” Upperwal stated. “They want to leverage AI, but they disregard DeepSeek and wish to avoid reliance on it altogether. Using U.S. systems like OpenAI is distinctly problematic since it risks data leaks from the country.”

Socket AI represents one of the few initiatives aimed at constructing a national LLM for India, supported by the IndiaAI Mission, a government-funded project that has invested roughly $1.25 billion in AI advancements. Upperwal envisions a model less resource-intensive than those produced by major American and Chinese tech firms, closely aligning with some from the
French AI company Mistral.

AI researchers have long contended that pushing the technology boundary to reach the often-elusive goal of artificial general intelligence (AGI) will necessitate considerable resources, including chips and computing capabilities. Upperwal emphasizes that India must compensate for its funding gaps with talent.

“In India, spending billions is not an option,” he asserts. “How can we compete against the $100 to $500 billion being invested by the United States? I believe leveraging core expertise and intellect is crucial.”

In Singapore, AI Singapore is a government initiative backing the SEA-LION project. SEA-LION is a suite of language models designed specifically for Southeast Asian languages that are typically underrepresented in U.S. and Chinese LLMs, such as Malay, Thai, Lao, Indonesian, and Khmer among others.

Leslie Teo, Senior Director at
AI Singapore, notes that these models aim to enhance rather than overshadow larger ones. Systems like ChatGPT and Gemini often falter with regional languages and cultural contexts, according to Teo. For instance, they may communicate in excessively formal Khmer or suggest pork-based recipes to users in Malaysia. Creating local language LLMs will empower local governments to code with cultural intricacies or at the very least become “smart consumers” of robust technologies developed abroad.

“I am very cautious with the term sovereignty. Essentially, we want better representation and a clearer understanding of how AI systems operate,” he states.

Multilateral Cooperation

For nations seeking to carve out a niche in an increasingly competitive global arena, collaboration is another option. Researchers tied to
Bennett School of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge have lately suggested forming a public AI enterprise distributed across a consortium of middle-income nations.

They refer to this initiative as
Airbus for AI, alluding to Europe’s successful efforts in establishing a competitor to Boeing in the 1960s. Their proposal envisages creating a public AI company that would unify the resources of AI initiatives from the UK, Spain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, France, Switzerland, and Sweden, aiming to forge a formidable rival to the tech giants of the U.S. and China.

Joshua Tan, the lead author of a paper outlining the initiative, mentioned that the idea has garnered interest from AI ministers in at least three nations and several sovereign AI firms. While the emphasis is currently on “powerful middle powers,” developing nations like Mongolia and Rwanda are also reportedly expressing interest.

“There’s certainly less trust in the current U.S. administration’s commitments. Questions are arising about the reliability of this technology and what might occur if they withdraw support,” he remarks.

Tan’s proposal is optimistic about the potential for collaboration among nations. However, critics suggest that even a coordinated multi-country strategy could squander taxpayer resources on initiatives that may not yield fruitful results.

“I hope that those developing this [sovereign] AI model understand how far and how rapidly advancements are progressing,” comments Tzu Kit Chan, an AI strategist advising the Malaysian government.

“What’s the alternative? If governments pursue flawed strategies in crafting their own sovereign AI models, they risk wasting vast amounts of capital.”

According to Chan, a more prudent approach would be for governments like Malaysia’s to allocate these funds toward enhancing AI safety regulations, as opposed to competing with globally dominant products that have already captured the market.

“Walk down the streets of Malaysia, visit Kuala Lumpur, engage with your financial counterparts and inquire about the models they utilize,” he suggests.

“Out of 10, I doubt that more than 2 are employing a sovereign AI model. Most are using ChatGPT or Gemini.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

UK Government’s Approach to Google Deemed “Dangerously Naive” by Campaigner

Google has struck a significant agreement with the UK government to supply complimentary technology to various public sector entities, ranging from the NHS to local councils.

US corporations are being called upon to “upskill” tens of thousands of civil servants in technology, including the application of artificial intelligence, as part of a deal that doesn’t necessitate payment from the government. Whitehall is set to enhance its collaboration with Google as public services evolve.

However, this arrangement has raised alarms about the potential risks to UK public data that could be housed on US servers, particularly in light of Donald Trump’s erratic leadership.

The Department of Science and Innovation Technology (DSIT) stated that Google Cloud, known for its databases, machine learning, and computing capabilities, “has agreed to assist public services in leveraging advanced technology to break free from outdated ‘ball and chain’ legacy contracts.”

Although Google’s offerings are believed to be more nimble and effective than those of traditional competitors, there are concerns within Whitehall’s digital circles that governments might become reliant on a new form of dependency.

Other American tech giants, including Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic, are also providing services to civil servants as they look to harness technology to enhance the efficiency of financially constrained public services.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Rachel Reeves convened with two senior members of Mark Zuckerberg’s team, Joel Kaplan, Meta’s top global affairs officer, and Nicola Mendelson, head of the global business group.

During the 2020 pandemic, Palantir, a high-tech firm founded by libertarian Trump supporter Peter Thiel, worked with the UK government for just £1 and secured a £330 million contract in 2023 to create a unified platform for NHS data.

DSIT also announced that Google DeepMind, the AI division helmed by Nobel Prize winner Demis Hassabis, will “partner with government tech experts to help implement and propagate new emerging technologies across the public sector, enhancing efficiency and driving scientific advancements.”

Nevertheless, ministers and regulatory bodies are grappling with crucial decisions on regulating AI, search, cloud computing, and copyright, as noted by Martha Dark, co-director of nonprofits advocating for fair technology use. The complexity of data sovereignty poses significant challenges, echoing concerns from Peter Kyle, the Secretary of Science and Technology.

Experts caution that this agreement could solidify the market dominance of companies like Google, placing the UK government in a position dependent on technology from major corporations. At a Google event in London on Wednesday, Kyle emphasized, “Whenever feasible, UK tech firms, whether large or small, will have equitable opportunities to win public technology contracts.”

According to sources within the government, the advantages gained by Google were not subjected to public bids as no financial exchange occurred. DSIT clarified, “These arrangements are fully compliant with all relevant public procurement regulations and may lead to future commercial agreements.”

As of the end of March, Kyle has engaged in 11 meetings with Google representatives since Labour took office.

The government affirmed that Google will not be allowed to train AI models using government data or access the data for other purposes. Additionally, data can only be stored abroad if adequate legal and security measures are established.

Google asserted that it retains control over where client content is stored and processed through partnerships with independent infrastructure providers, employing an “air gap” system for added protection.

Kyle remarked, “I aim to maximize the potential of the government-Google partnership and explore further collaborations with the UK’s AI lab, DeepMind, and my own AI developers.”

There are indications of new technologies that could enhance efficiency within the public sector. A recent examination of Microsoft’s AI Copilot tool revealed that 20,000 civil servants saved an average of 26 minutes each day, with 82% expressing a desire not to revert to previous work methods, as highlighted in a study.

However, Imogen Parker, Associate Director of the Ada Lovelace Institute, emphasized the necessity for public understanding regarding the benefits Google will derive from this partnership and what taxpayers might face in the coming years. “Deals like this may appear beneficial today, but there’s a risk of becoming locked in tomorrow, limiting options for future alternatives,” she cautioned.

Kyle has faced criticism for appearing too cozy with Big Tech. After being reported by the Guardian, he began a speech admitting he had likely engaged more with tech executives than his predecessor.

“I will never apologize for engaging with tech companies – that’s my role,” he stated, emphasizing the importance of ensuring children’s safety on social media, preparing the UK for advancements in AI, and securing better value from the significant sums spent on technology each year.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Leaders in the Performing Arts Sound Alarm on UK Government’s AI Plan, Warn of Copyright Issues

A group of more than 30 British performing arts leaders, including executives from the National Theatre, Opera North, and Royal Albert Hall, have expressed concerns over the government’s proposal to allow artists to use their work without permission.

In a joint statement, they emphasized that performing arts organizations rely on a delicate balance of freelancers who depend on copyright to sustain their livelihoods. They urged the government to uphold the “moral and economic rights” of the creative community encompassing music, dance, drama, and opera.

Signatories to the statement include top leaders from institutions such as Saddlers Wells Dance Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Company, Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, and Leeds Playhouse.

They expressed concern over the government’s plan to diminish creative copyright by granting exemptions to AI companies. The statement highlighted the reliance of highly skilled creative workers on copyright and the potential negative impact on their livelihoods.


While embracing technological advancements, they warned that the government’s plans could hinder their participation in AI development. They called for automatic rights for creative professionals and criticized proposals that require copyright holders to opt out.

Additionally, they demanded transparency from AI companies regarding the copyrighted material they use in their models and how it was obtained. The government’s proposed transparency requirements in copyright consultations were noted.

The statement emphasized the importance of music, drama, dance, and opera to human joy and highlighted the backlash against the government’s proposals from prominent figures in the creative industry.

The controversy revolves around AI models that power tools like ChatGpt chatbots, trained using vast amounts of data from the open web. A government spokesperson defended the new approach, aiming to balance the interests of AI developers and rights holders.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Protesters Object to Elon Musk’s Government’s Budget Reduction at Tesla

Protesters gathered outside Tesla dealers across the United States on Saturday in response to Elon Musk’s efforts to sculpt government spending under President Donald Trump.

Groups of up to 100 demonstrators gathered outside the electric car manufacturer’s showrooms, including New York, Seattle, Kansas City and across California. Organizers said the protests took place in dozens of locations.

While the protests were scattered, they highlighted the risks to the car companies that have a close ties with Musk’s underlying right-wing agenda. Many protesters likened the Trump administration to the Nazis to carry placards. This is a characteristic that masks have previously highlighted.

Musk leads Doge, whose name comes from the US president’s “government efficiency,” or the Internet dog meme. Doge’s actions have rapidly dismantled government agencies, fired large federal workers across the United States, and have been criticized by some constitutional experts as illegal.

Some Tesla investors have asked whether Musk and the Trump administration’s relationship, including spending more than $200 million on a presidential campaign, will dent sales, particularly in liberal regions of the United States. Locations, including California, tended to be the largest market for U.S. electric vehicles, while Republicans and the Trump administration were actively opposed to technology.


Protest outside Tesla dealer in New York
Saturday.
Photo: Justin Lane/EPA

American musician Sheryl Crow posted a video of himself on Saturday, bidding farewell to Tesla, led by the Instagram social network. She said she sold the car and donated money to the US National Public Radio Station (NPR), which is “under threat by President Musk.”

“My parents always said… you’re the one you hang out with,” she wrote. “It’s time you have to decide who you’re going to suit. A very long Tesla.”

People within the Tesla business claim that the company is separate from the CEO. But that surge in valuation has played a key role in building the wealth of masks used to fund Trump’s campaign, thanks to previously burgeoning sales.

Tesla’s stock accounts for about a third of Musk’s wealth, according to Bloomberg. The private rocket company SpaceX is another third of ownership, while the rest links to Xai, X Social Network, Boring Company, Tunnel Business, and stakes from Brain-Computer Interface Company NeuralInk. Musk uses Tesla and SpaceX shares to secure personal loans worth billions of dollars.

Tesla reported its first annual sales decline in 2024 amid a tough time for the global automotive industry. It is not yet clear whether Musk’s right-wing politics contributed to its decline, and the company could potentially be able to compensate for the lost left-wing clientele with new enthusiasts on the right.

Some commentators have linked the sharp decline in German Tesla sales with a December declaration of support for the far-right alternative Deutschland (AFD). German Tesla sales fell 60% year-on-year in January, but delivery schedules could be affected by other factors that exceeded demand.

Tesla could be vulnerable to political backlash in other ways. In the UK, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davy said this week that the Labour government should impose tariffs on Tesla vehicles in retaliation from the White House, which taxes steel imports.

Tesla was asked to comment.

Source: www.theguardian.com

TechScape: The US Government’s Push to Make Google Sell Chrome | Technology

Google is facing challenges. According to my colleague Dan Milmo, the U.S. Department of Justice is looking into Google’s structure and business practices, including the potential sale of its Chrome browser to break its monopoly on Internet search. This comes after a court ruling finding Google in violation of antitrust laws for monopolizing search services. The Justice Department’s proposal is straightforward: Google should sell Chrome. As for Android, two options have been proposed: sell it or agree to government oversight.

Both demands present a significant challenge to Google’s advertising business, and could have severe consequences for the company.

In a blog post, Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, criticized the Justice Department’s proposal, calling it “staggering,” “extreme,” and “unprecedented government overreach.” Google plans to submit its own proposal and appeal the court ruling. However, Walker’s response was somewhat exaggerated, referring to the requirement for two selection screens to access Google Search on Pixel smartphones as comically histrionic.

The Justice Department aims to increase competition by exposing Google to competition, denying the benefits of any legal violation, and preventing Google from dominating markets in the future.

Google’s advertising business relies heavily on its search service, with Chrome being a key component as the most popular browser globally. Losing Chrome would have a significant impact on Google’s advertising revenue. The debate also touches on U.S. leadership in the tech industry, with Google arguing that selling Chrome could undermine it.

There’s also talk of potentially selling Android, which plays a crucial role in data collection for advertising. The government could impose surveillance on Android, impacting Google’s business operations. The potential changes raise questions about the future aesthetic and control of smartphone operating systems.

Without Chrome, Google would lose a vital market, particularly in the education sector where Chromebooks are widely used in schools. Chrome OS is designed for web-based tasks, influencing user preferences towards Google products in the future.

If Google manages to retain Chrome, it may still need to reconsider its search engine default agreements, including the $20 billion contract with Apple. The company could be forced to adjust or terminate these contracts as part of the proposed remedies.

Review

Elon “First Buddy” Musk and his Sidekick Debut, Doge




Elon Musk and Donald Trump in October. Photo: Alex Brandon/AP

A recent development saw Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy appointed as heads of the Ministry of Government Efficiency, known as Doge, although it’s not an official government department. Musk has given it a governmental status on Twitter. They are advisors to President Trump and plan to use executive actions to reform non-governmental government agencies. Their approach focuses on efficiency but lacks detailed plans.

Musk and Ramaswamy target cost-cutting, aiming to eliminate programs that lack congressional approval. However, their approach faces criticism for potential repercussions such as cutting medical care for military veterans. Despite their intentions, the implementation of their ideas remains uncertain.

Source: www.theguardian.com

The US government’s investigation of NVIDIA for alleged misconduct is justified | Max von Thun

circleWhen a company like computer chip maker Nvidia experiences a significant surge in value within a short period, it catches the attention of investors. However, regulators are also alert, knowing the risks of monopolies stifling competition and manipulating markets. The U.S. Department of Justice, along with other competition authorities and tech watchdogs, suspect Nvidia of employing such tactics to strengthen its chip monopoly. Recently, reports surfaced that the Justice Department would initiate an antitrust investigation. investigationIt's about time.

Before the pandemic, Nvidia was relatively unknown to those outside the realm of video game enthusiasts with high-end gaming computers and consoles featuring powerful Nvidia chips. However, in the era of generative AI, Nvidia has risen to prominence. The fastest growing The greatest companies and their chips of all time Powered Every significant AI milestone (including OpenAI's development of ChatGPT) Two thirds of the AI ​​business tools market.

Generative AI necessitates massive computational power, with Nvidia's GPUs being a preferred choice for these calculations. This alignment between computational needs and Nvidia's chips has significantly contributed to the company's high market capitalization. 30 or more times In just five years, The world's most valuable companies It surpassed Microsoft and Apple earlier this year.

While Nvidia's success is beneficial for investors amid the AI ​​boom, recent stock market fluctuations suggest that the enthusiasm may be excessive. Nvidia should not be faulted for capitalizing on favorable circumstances, but the manner in which a company like Nvidia expands is critical. Unfair practices like driving out competitors, inflating prices, and fortifying monopolies are detrimental to customers, fair competition, and the public interest.

Similar to other tech giants, NVIDIA aims to dominate every market it enters. 88% of the world It also leverages GPUs and holds an edge in AI. Some projections indicate that Nvidia could attain a Trillion Dollar Market within a few years, solidifying its dominance. 98% of the market For data center GPUs.

Despite serving as a vital infrastructure for the AI ​​industry, Nvidia’s market power raises concerns. By amalgamating chips, software, and network services, the company holds a strong position in dictating AI development. This concentration can hinder competition, increase prices, and limit innovation, ultimately harming consumers and fair market practices.

To promote a healthy AI chip market, equitable accessibility to advanced semiconductors is essential. This fosters innovation, supports small businesses, and mitigates potential monopolistic control over the industry. Addressing these issues is crucial to safeguarding fair competition, consumer choice, and overall market resilience against disruptions.

The mounting concentration of the chip market, particularly controlled by Nvidia, warrants caution. As AI regulation initiatives emerge globally, Nvidia’s dominance in supplying high-demand chips places it in a quasi-regulatory role, influencing AI development access. This commercial influence over regulatory matters is concerning, highlighting the need for robust oversight to prevent monopolistic practices.

While Nvidia’s rapid growth is remarkable, it does not absolve the company from potential regulatory scrutiny for its monopoly practices. By leveraging its market power to exclude competitors and strengthen its position, Nvidia jeopardizes healthy competition and public interest. Regulators must act swiftly to prevent Nvidia from repeating the mistakes of past tech giants in dominating markets and stifling innovation.

Source: www.theguardian.com

UK election: Realigning the next government’s climate strategy for success

Climate activists protest outside the Houses of Parliament in London in March.

Andrea Domeniconi/Alamy

This week, more than 400 climate scientists from UK research institutes published an open letterAhead of the general election on 4 July, he called on UK political parties to commit to stronger climate action in the next Parliament.

Their demands included a “credible” carbon reduction strategy for the country, during an election campaign where there has been little in-depth discussion about the UK's transition to net zero.

Why are scientists worried? After all, the UK has one of the most ambitious climate targets in the world – a legally binding target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 – and has halved its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.

But the truth is that the UK's race to net zero has slowed in recent years, with annual emissions Half the rate needed to achieve the intermediate goal.

While great progress has been made in decarbonizing the electricity supply, with around half of all electricity now generated from zero-carbon sources, other sectors are lagging behind. The Committee on Climate Change, the UK government's climate advisers, say that outside the electricity sector, the rate of emissions reductions needs to quadruple over the next seven years for the UK to meet its commitment to cut emissions by 68% by 2030. I said in OctoberHe warned it was “unlikely” the UK would get there under current plans.

“There's a real sense of frustration in the climate science community,” he said. Emily Schuckberg “We are yet to see the level of response that is required,” said a Cambridge University researcher who co-authored the scientists' letter.

The slow progress means problems are piling up, waiting for the next administration to tackle them.

Transportation and Buildings

By the end of the decade, emissions from surface transport – roads, rail and ships – need to fall by around 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, four times the rate of reduction over the past decade. Electric car sales may be growing strongly, but sales of electric vans and trucks are sluggish, and the number of public charging points is not growing fast enough to keep up with the volume of electric vehicles travelling. Meanwhile, public transport use has fallen sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, It's not back to the previous level.

Getting the transport sector to net zero will require more than just convincing everyone to buy electric cars, Michael Pollitt The Cambridge researchers say that reducing the number and size of cars is a key part of the puzzle. “We need more radical thinking about intercity transport, including prioritising lanes for small vehicles and dramatically reducing the size and weight of vehicles,” they say. “If people can travel in significantly smaller cars and public transport, that's the route to net-zero transport.”

When it comes to buildings, home heating is the biggest pain point. Around 23 million homes in the UK are heated by gas boilers. By the middle of the century, all of these homes will need to be heated with zero-carbon energy sources, and it is expected that most will switch to heat pumps.

But the pace of the transition is too slow: just 69,000 heat pumps will be installed in UK homes in 2022, far short of the target of 600,000 per year by 2028. Part of the problem is finances: heat pumps are much more expensive to install than gas boilers, and they are often more expensive to run as well, due to an additional levy on grid costs. “We absolutely have to get the price of heat pumps down,” Porritt says. “Unless the price of heat pumps comes down significantly, they will be a major obstacle to decarbonising heating.”

It is urgent to solve these problems. Nick Air One Oxford professor who signed the open letter said that a gas boiler installed in 2035 would still be heating homes in 2050. “For heat pumps and cars, we need to be pretty much sorted by the early 2040s, which means we need to get very serious about it in the 2030s,” he said.

That's why the UK government's inaction over the last decade, when it should have been focusing on preparing industry for mass adoption, is so worrying. “We know what needs to be done,” Eyre says, “but the last two years in particular have been a period of no real action being taken.”

Agriculture and Aviation

Beyond heat, power and transport, tougher choices lie ahead. For example, emissions from agriculture and land use have remained almost unchanged for a decade, but need to be reduced by 29% by 2035. Achieving these reductions will likely require actions to change the way people eat. Similarly, reducing aviation emissions will require actions to curb demand, such as taxes on frequent flyers.

“The biggest challenge is starting to implement policies and regulations that will affect people's daily lives.” Leo Mercer “If policies are not communicated well, people will react quite strongly,” said the professor at the London School of Economics.

Alongside its domestic challenges, the UK needs to rebuild its reputation on the international stage: under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the UK hosted the COP26 climate summit and led international coalitions on deforestation, methane and electric vehicles.

However, progress on climate change measures in the UK has slowed, cuts in international aid and climate diplomacy; Britain's international reputation has suffered, and the government's decisions to approve new fossil fuel projects in the UK while urging lower-income countries to “move away” from fossil fuels have also antagonized the British public.

Unless a country like the UK can demonstrate that net zero is achievable and desirable as a national strategy, it will face an uphill battle to persuade lower-income countries to cut emissions, which is why it is crucial the UK restores its reputation as a climate leader in the next parliament, he says. Katerina Brandmeyer At Imperial College London.

Next year, countries are due to submit new commitments under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. “So this is a pivotal moment for the international community,” she said. “This parliament will be crucial not only to ensuring delivery in the UK, but also to raising ambition globally.”

What each party is proposing

So which party can take action on the scale needed to get the UK back on track? All the major parties agree on the need to reach net zero by mid-century, and Labour and the Conservatives are remarkably in agreement on the need for renewable energy, particularly offshore wind.

But Labour has made an eye-catching promise to deliver a fully decarbonised electricity grid by 2030. Adam Bell A former senior UK government official at Stonehaven, a British consultancy, said the target was “highly ambitious” and would push government agencies to the limits of their capabilities. [Labour] It could be even more ambitious.”

But for Eyre, a credible climate manifesto should also include ambitious targets in the areas where the UK is seriously off track: home energy efficiency, heat pump adoption, industrial emissions, land use, solar power and electric vehicles. “It's not a matter of doing one or two of them,” Eyre says. “We need to do them all.”

Many experts privately doubt that the major parties have policy programmes with the pace and scale needed to get to net zero by 2050. Absent that, looking for enthusiasm for the challenges ahead may be the next best way to gauge a party's credibility. In Eyre's eyes, the next UK government is embarking on a “10-year plan on the scale of the introduction of the steam engine.” “If you don't have a positive vision yourself, you're not going to sell it to the public,” he says.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

China’s hacking poses challenge for Western governments in coordinating response

The phrase ‘tip of the iceberg’ comes to mind as the UK government announces its plans to impose sanctions on two individuals and an entity for their alleged involvement in a cyber attack targeting British MPs in 2021. It seems like just the beginning. But underestimating the situation would be a mistake.

Home Secretary James Cleverley emphasized that these sanctions send a strong message that “targeting elected officials and electoral processes will not be tolerated.”

Despite this, some experts interpret the US’s decision to prosecute seven individuals associated with a hacking group called APT31 as a sign of trouble for Britain. They were involved in a widespread hacking operation, sending over 10,000 malicious emails to various individuals across multiple continents, including politicians, officials, journalists, and China critics.

Cybersecurity professor Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey believes that while the sanctions may not bring about immediate change in the UK’s cybersecurity, they are necessary to show solidarity with the US. However, he warns that more significant actions are needed to address the issue effectively.

The UK government also disclosed a historic hacking attempt, attributing it to “Chinese state-affiliated entities” targeting the Election Commission’s system from 2021 to 2022. The Chinese embassy in London denied these allegations, calling them baseless. However, the sanctioned entities were not directly linked to this specific incident, causing confusion among cybersecurity experts.

The broader context of Chinese cyber attacks reveals a pattern that all Western governments, including the UK, must navigate carefully. APT31 and other Chinese hacking groups have targeted countries like France, Finland, and New Zealand, according to reports. Such attacks underscore the challenges posed by China’s aggressive cyber activities.

Recent data breaches from Chinese cybersecurity company iSoon shed light on the extent of Chinese hacker activity and their pursuit of government contracts. With China being a leader in government-sponsored cyber exploitation, Western governments struggle to formulate a unified response to these threats.

The complexities of dealing with Chinese cyber attacks highlight the need for coordinated efforts among Western nations. China’s strategic denial and plausible deniability tactics make it challenging to hold them accountable for their actions. This, coupled with the elusive impact of data breaches, complicates the cybersecurity landscape.

While Russia’s hacking often causes immediate discord, China’s approach is more calculated, shaping global perceptions subtly. Understanding the nuances of Chinese cyber activities is crucial for international security experts, who view China as a long-term climate change compared to Russia’s intermittent storm.

The recent indictment of hackers linked to Chengdu 404 and the ongoing cyber operations against China reveal the ongoing struggle between intelligence activities and political espionage. As accusations and sanctions fly back and forth, the complexity of the cybersecurity landscape continues to evolve.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Supreme Court to Decide on Government’s Authority on Online Misinformation | Tech

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday in a case that may have significant implications for the federal government’s relationship with social media companies and online misinformation. The plaintiffs in Marcy v. Missouri claim that the White House’s request to remove false information about the coronavirus on Twitter and Facebook constitutes unlawful censorship in violation of the First Amendment.

The discussion began with Brian Fletcher, the Justice Department’s acting chief attorney general, arguing that the government’s actions do not cross the line from persuasion to coercion. He also disputed the lower court’s portrayal of events in the ruling, calling it misleading or containing quotes taken out of context.

“When the government convinces a private organization not to distribute or promote someone else’s speech, it is not censorship but rather persuading the private organization to act within its legal rights,” stated Fletcher.

The justices, particularly conservatives Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, pressed Fletcher on where the distinction lies between coercing and persuading a company. Fletcher defended the government’s actions as part of a broader effort to mitigate harm to the public.

Louisiana Attorney General Benjamin Aguignaga argued that the government was covertly pressuring platforms to censor speech, violating the First Amendment. The lawsuit, led by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, accused the government of infringing on constitutional rights.

Several justices, including liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, also weighed in on the government’s efforts to address potential harm and the boundaries of the First Amendment. Sotomayor criticized the factual inaccuracies in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

Aguignaga apologized for any shortcomings in the brief and acknowledged that it may not have been as thorough as it should have been.

Source: www.theguardian.com