Nearly two years ago, during the COP28 climate summit in the heart of the oil-rich United Arab Emirates, nations committed to begin “transitioning our energy systems away from fossil fuels” to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, the global share of energy sourced from fossil fuels has stubbornly remained over 80 percent, consistent with trends from previous decades.
Due to our inability to decarbonize, researchers now believe we have set off Earth’s first “tipping point,” a significant shift in climate that cannot be easily reversed. Current ocean temperatures are alarmingly high, putting coral reefs at risk of widespread death (see page 9).
What obstacles are impeding the energy transition? While there isn’t a straightforward answer, it is often noted that a select few companies, predominantly fossil fuel corporations, are responsible for the majority of emissions. Criticism of such statements is easy, as they deflect responsibility away from consumers who utilize this energy.
“
Major tech companies are minimizing earlier promises to achieve net zero “
However, it is reasonable to critique oil and gas firms that tout their ecological initiatives yet fail to follow through. Many of these companies promote their renewable energy investments, but in reality, their contributions to future energy production remain minimal (see page 16).
Regrettably, the situation appears poised to worsen before it improves. Encouraged by the Trump administration, numerous oil and gas companies have vowed to boost production, while significant players in other sectors, like tech, are downplaying their net-zero commitments.
Next month, governments are set to convene once more to deliberate on climate policy at COP30 in Brazil. While military action is unlikely from the United States, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has yet to confirm his participation. At this juncture, it’s reasonable to question whether any politicians or business leaders genuinely regard the climate change threat seriously. If they do, they must start demonstrating that urgency through action.
Earlier this year, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg organized a private dinner where a group of technology entrepreneurs had the opportunity to meet influential ministers, as revealed by official documents.
As a long-time supporter of the tech industry, the former prime minister hosted this dinner at a high-end hotel in London, representing the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) political consultancy.
Together with former deputy prime minister Mr. Clegg, who was a senior executive at Meta at the time, they invited leaders from six tech firms, including Poppy Gustafsson, the government’s investment minister tasked with encouraging businesses to invest in the UK.
Mr. Blair is a passionate advocate for the transformative potential of technology in public services and has actively sought partnerships with industry leaders. His consultancy has produced several policy papers that advocate for placing artificial intelligence at the core of government initiatives.
However, some critics express concerns that Prime Minister Blair, known for his close ties to Keir Starmer’s administration, has been able to influence the agenda without adequate public oversight. There are also questions surrounding the reliance of Blair’s consultancy on significant contributions from Silicon Valley’s billionaire Larry Ellison, an acquaintance of Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
Mr. Ellison, who briefly claimed the title of the world’s richest person this year, has donated or committed over $300 million to Mr. Blair’s consultancy.
Documents obtained by the Guardian through freedom of information laws reveal that 12 attendees discussed the government’s evolving stand on artificial intelligence at a gathering deemed a “salon dinner.”
Do you have any information about this story? Email henry.dyer@theguardian.com or message (using your non-work phone) Signal or WhatsApp to +44 7721 857348. For the most secure communications, visit theguardian.com/tips.
The dinner took place at the luxurious Corinthia Hotel in late January and featured Ron Jaffe, managing director of Insight Partners, a US venture capital firm investing in tech companies.
Also present was Alex Kendall, CEO of Wave, focused on self-driving cars, along with Nigel Thune, head of Graphcore, a computer chip manufacturer, and Mark Warner, CEO of Faculty AI, who last year collaborated with TBI to produce a document on leveraging AI to enhance public services.
A representative for Mr. Clegg noted, “During his tenure at Meta, Nick Clegg frequently interacted with government ministers and other tech CEOs, which is standard for his role in policy and global affairs.”
According to a TBI spokesperson, “The event featured discussions with ministers about various issues among tech leaders. No companies were charged to attend.”
Companies that participated asserted they do not contribute to or employ TBI.
This dinner illustrates how Prime Minister Blair’s consultancy is advancing pro-technology policies. The rapidly growing TBI is active in 45 countries and employs over 900 staff members. Its most recent financial statement reported revenues of $145 million in 2022 from advisory services and donations, although many donors and clients remain undisclosed.
The consultancy faces criticism for potentially allowing donor interests to influence its policy positions, a claim it disputes. It has also been criticized for continuing financial ties with Saudi Arabia following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. Blair is anticipated to play a significant role in the reconstruction of Gaza following the war.
Weeks prior to the dinner, the government confidentially provided an outline of an AI action plan to TBI shortly before it was set to be publicly released. On January 9, Ferial Clark, then Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), made this request at the prompting of TBI’s Director of Science Policy, Jacob Mokander.
The following day, an aide to Mr. Clark reached out to Mr. Mokander stating, “It was a pleasure speaking with you. As a follow-up, here’s the top-secret action plan summary. Thank you for expanding the plan through your networks and supportive quotes on Monday.” Mr. Mokander replied, “Thanks for sharing the action plan (confidentiality).” Blair endorsed the action plan on January 13, which aims to bolster the UK’s role in AI development and deployment.
When asked why this document was shared with TBI so early, a DSIT spokesperson stated, “We cannot apologize for our regular engagement with stakeholders. It’s standard to share embargoed information with them ahead of publication.”
A spokesperson for TBI remarked, “It’s typical for governments to consult experts and engage various stakeholders when crafting policy. As indicated in the footnotes, the AI Opportunity Action Plan accurately references our published work.”
quick guide
How to contact the research team
show
The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand reporting from those in the know.
If you have something to share regarding this matter, please contact our research team confidentially by:
Secure messaging in the Guardian app
The Guardian app has a tool to submit story tips. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and hidden within the daily activities performed by all Guardian mobile apps. This prevents observers from knowing that you are communicating with us, much less what you are saying.
If you don’t already have the Guardian app, please download it (iOS/Android) to go to the app menu. Select ‘Secure Messaging’, follow the instructions to compose your message, and select ‘UK Research Team’ as the recipient.
SecureDrop, instant messenger, email, phone, mail
If you can safely use the Tor network without being monitored or observed, you can send messages and documents to Guardians through the SecureDrop platform.
Finally, the guide at theguardian.com/tips lists several ways to contact us safely and discusses the pros and cons of each.
A significant figure was missing as Donald Trump hosted leaders from America’s largest tech firms in the stunning national dining room of the White House on Thursday evening. Once a close ally of Trump, Elon Musk was a frequent topic of discussion but did not attend.
The dinner featured notable attendees such as Mark Zuckerberg from Meta, Bill Gates from Microsoft, Tim Cook from Apple, and Sam Altman from OpenAI. Only a few months earlier, a mask had rested on Trump’s right hand during similar gatherings. Musk, CEO of Tesla, stated on his social media platform X that he was invited but couldn’t make it. He intended to send representatives while spending the day posting content attacking immigrants and trans people.
The White House declined to comment on Musk’s absence from the dinner.
Originally scheduled to take place in the newly renovated Rose Garden, the event was moved indoors due to predictions of thunderstorms. It commenced with praise from various tech leaders, followed by a brief question-and-answer session with reporters.
The absence of masks marks a noteworthy shift under Trump’s leadership, whether the decision was voluntary or not. I often joked post-election, “Elon won’t leave; I can’t get rid of him.” The empty seats underscore the growing divide between Trump and Musk since the latter distanced himself earlier this year. This separation has diminished Musk’s political influence, despite his heavy financial investments aimed at supporting Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign.
Musk’s absence also mirrors a previous White House event that was a pivotal moment in his political journey. In 2022, then-President Joe Biden did not invite Musk to the electric vehicle summit, drawing criticism from the Autoworkers Union over concerns. At that time, Musk had not publicly aligned himself with the Republican Party, and he expressed his discontent with Biden’s snub, vowing not to support him. This decision ultimately proved detrimental for Democrats.
This incident clearly resonated with Musk, who tends to hold grudges similar to Trump. Even on the day of the dinner, he expressed his frustration towards Biden rather than his current ally, retweeting a clip from 2023 where he addressed Biden’s snub, declaring, “I’m going to start a fight, but I’m going to finish them.”
In the following years, Musk grappled with political rights, transforming X into a hub for far-right influencers. With over 200 million followers, he frequently retweeted disinformation about Democrats, alleging that immigrants were conspiring to illegally influence elections worldwide. Musk also became one of Trump’s staunchest and wealthiest supporters, donating nearly $300 million to Trump’s re-election efforts and Republican initiatives.
Musk’s support for Trump placed him in a pivotal position following Trump’s rise to power, as the tech mogul spearheaded initiatives for “government efficiency” and significantly dismantled federal agencies. He became a common presence at political dinners and events. However, a year after the British government made incendiary anti-immigrant statements, Musk was not invited to a major technology summit.
Musk and Trump’s relationship deteriorated over differing policy views in May, particularly after Musk publicly opposed a significant bill signed by Trump. This led to accusations against Trump regarding his connections to the infamous sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, causing Musk to largely disappear from prominent government events. Although Trump has praised Musk as a “genius,” he acknowledged on Wednesday night that Musk “has had some issues,” and the two have not been seen together since this fallout.
Despite Musk stepping back from the White House event, other tech leaders have filled the void. Earlier this month, Trump welcomed Apple CEO Tim Cook to the White House. Meanwhile, discussions among Trump’s aides about cutting government contracts with Musk, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, ultimately revealed that terminating these contracts could jeopardize too many essential projects.
Had Musk attended the dinner on Thursday, it would have created an uncomfortable dynamic, particularly given the presence of two companies he is currently opposing: Apple and OpenAI, led by his former collaborator and now rival, Altman. Like Trump, Musk has also publicly criticized Gates, particularly after the Microsoft founder’s alleged ties to Epstein, even accusing him of “killing children” through cuts to foreign aid.
The leader of the organization behind ChatGpt and the UK’s tech secretary recently engaged in discussions about a multi-billion-pound initiative to offer premium AI tool access across the nation, as reported by The Guardian.
Sam Altman, OpenAI’s co-founder, had conversations with Peter Kyle regarding a potential arrangement that would enable UK residents to utilize its sophisticated products.
Informed sources indicate that this concept emerged during a broader dialogue about the collaborative opportunities between OpenAI and the UK while in San Francisco.
Individuals familiar with the talks noted that Kyle was somewhat skeptical about the proposal, largely due to the estimated £2 billion cost. Nonetheless, the exchange reflects the Technology Secretary’s willingness to engage with the AI sector, despite prevailing concerns regarding the accuracy of various chatbots and issues surrounding privacy and copyright.
OpenAI provides both free and subscription versions of ChatGPT, with the paid ChatGPT Plus version costing $20 per month. This subscription offers quicker response times and priority access to new features for its users.
According to transparency data from the UK government, Kyle dined with Altman in March and April. In July, he formalized an agreement with OpenAI to incorporate AI into public services throughout the UK. These non-binding agreements could grant OpenAI access to government data and potential applications in education, defense, security, and justice sectors.
Secretary of State Peter Kyle for Science, Innovation and Technology. Photo: Thomas Krych/Zuma Press Wire/Shutterstock
Kyle is a prominent advocate for AI within the government and incorporates its use into his role. In March, it was revealed he consulted ChatGPT for insights on job-related inquiries, including barriers to AI adoption among British companies and his podcast appearances.
The minister expressed in January to Politicshome:
The UK stands among OpenAI’s top five markets for paid ChatGPT subscriptions. An OpenAI spokesperson mentioned: [a memorandum of understanding] aims to assess how the government can facilitate AI growth in the UK.
“In line with the government’s vision of leveraging this technology to create economic opportunities for everyday individuals, our shared objective is to democratize AI access. The wider the reach, the greater the benefits for everyone.”
Recently, the company has been in talks with several governments, securing a contract with the UAE for using technology in public sectors like transportation, healthcare, and education to enable nationwide ChatGPT adoption.
The UK government is eager to draw AI investment from the USA, having established a deal with OpenAI’s competitor Google earlier this year.
Kyle stated that in the next ten years, the establishment of a new UN Security Council will be significantly influenced by technology, especially AI, which he believes will play a fundamental role in determining global power dynamics.
Similar to other generative AI tools, ChatGPT is capable of generating text, images, videos, and music upon receiving user prompts. This functionality raises concerns about potential copyright violations, and the technology has faced criticism for disseminating false information and offering poor advice.
The minister has expressed support for planned amendments to copyright law that would permit AI companies to utilize copyrighted materials for model training, unless the copyright holder explicitly opts out.
The consultations and reviews by the government have sparked claims from creative sectors that the current administration is too aligned with major tech companies.
Ukai, the UK’s foremost trade organization for the AI industry, has repeatedly contended that the government’s strategy is overly concentrated on large tech players, neglecting smaller entities.
A government representative stated, “We are not aware of these allegations. We are collaborating with OpenAI and other leading AI firms to explore investment in UK infrastructure, enhancing public services, and rigorously testing the security of emerging technologies before their introduction.”
The Science and Technology Division clarified that discussions regarding the accessibility of ChatGPT Plus to UK residents have not advanced, nor have they conferred with other departments on the matter.
A spokesman for Greene stated that lawmakers have been “discussing this matter for quite some time” and asserted that the bill is unrelated to the floods in Texas.
In a follow-up email, Greene communicated with Zeldin and expressed encouragement over his actions.
“This is an uncontrolled experiment conducted in the atmosphere without consent. It’s reckless, dangerous, and must be halted,” she stated in an email.
Burchett’s office did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment.
Following Milton and Helen, NOAA issued a factsheet in October 2024, aiming to debunk “weather modification claims” that emerged after two storms impacted Florida and North Carolina. The agency declared it would not “fund or engage in cloud seeding or any weather modification projects.”
Zeldin’s reference to more fringe theories regarding extreme weather coincides with the Trump administration’s reduction in climate change research funding and the removal of a website hosting the government’s climate assessment. President Donald Trump referred to climate change as a hoax, despite scientists uncovering stronger evidence linking the intensity and frequency of extreme weather to global warming.
Decades of research on weather modification have often fueled conspiracy theories.
From 1962 to 1982, NOAA participated in a project called Storm Fury, which aimed to investigate whether hurricane intensity could be altered. This study did not achieve its goals and was ultimately discontinued. NOAA has not undertaken similar research since. According to the factsheet.
Cloud seeding is a weather modification technology currently utilized. This practice has existed since the 1950s and typically involves dispersing silver iodide into clouds to extract moisture from the atmosphere, resulting in additional precipitation. Presently, cloud seeding programs are mainly focused on enhancing water supplies in western states. Companies are required to notify authorities before implementing such measures.
“Cloud seeding doesn’t generate water; it aids surrounding clouds in releasing 5-15% of their moisture. However, Texas was already experiencing 100% humidity, extreme moisture, and storms. The clouds didn’t require assistance,” Cappucci stated.
The proliferation of these claims coincides with escalating threats directed at meteorologists.
Geoengineering is a legitimate scientific field; however, assertions regarding its capability to control significant weather patterns and generate adverse weather are unfounded. Most geoengineering techniques remain theoretical and untested, with federal researchers making only tentative steps to evaluate their viability. Atmospheric scientists report no evidence of any large-scale programs.
Last year, in Alameda, California, a small test project in geoengineering, referred to as Marine Cloud Brightening, was disrupted by community protestors, despite researchers demonstrating its safety.
Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert described how conspiracy theories tend to surge, particularly during moments of weather events that leave individuals feeling powerless.
“Conspiracy theories offer emotionally gratifying narratives. They restore a sense of control by framing phenomena as intentional actions by powerful entities rather than unpredictable chaotic events,” Alpert told NBC News. “In this context, believing ‘someone is doing this to us’ is more bearable than facing the idea that ‘no one is in charge.'”
While some interpret the EPA’s actions as a sign of transparency, others view it merely as a recent political maneuver to sidestep critical environmental issues.
“Some individuals question whether the bird is real or not. Will that become your next focus?” Congressman Don Beyer D-Va remarked in response to Zeldin’s comments on Thursday morning. He went on to comment on X regarding the EPA guidelines, “How much taxpayer money will be expended on this?”
The Oval Office was bustling, and reporters cautioned him to avoid bumping into the significant desk. Beside him, dressed in black, stood Donald Trump’s billionaire associate, leading his administration’s efficiency initiative.
“Elon is from South Africa. I don’t want to draw Elon into this,” the US president said to South African leader Cyril Ramaphosa during a conversation regarding crimes against white farmers. “He actually came here on a different topic: launching rockets to Mars. He’s even more passionate about that.”
Musk’s quiet demeanor throughout the hour-long discussion hinted at the evolving dynamics in Trump’s sphere. He planned to stay close to the president and remain welcome in the West Wing. He also made two visits to the Pentagon this week. However, the relationship, once predicted to result in a clash of egos, appears to be gradually fading instead.
On Monday, Politico published an analysis titled “Why Has Elon Musk Disappeared from the Spotlight?” revealing a notable decline in the frequency of Trump’s posts about Musk on his social media platform, with an average of four mentions weekly in February, dropping to none from early April to March.
In February, Trump’s fundraising team reported he mentioned Musk almost daily in emails for fundraising. However, those references abruptly ceased in early March, save for one email in May promoting the “American Bay” hat Musk wore.
Furthermore, White House staffers no longer filled their social media feeds with Musk-related content. Reporters seldom inquire about him during White House press briefings. Council members are steering clear of his name.
Musk appears to have noted the shift. Recently, Tesla’s CEO confirmed he has scaled back his involvement in the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) to merely two days a week. Reducing his political expenditures serves as his latest indication that he is redirecting his focus to his business empire, amidst rising concerns from investors.
This represents a stark contrast to the opening week of Trump’s second term, during which Musk attended the inauguration, was a constant figure at Mar-a-Lago, regularly appeared in the Oval Office with Trump, and exchanged mutual accolades during a Fox News interview. DOGE dominated headlines as he aimed to streamline the federal bureaucracy.
Trump seemed captivated by the wealthiest individuals intent on launching rockets into space, contributing at least $250 million to last year’s election campaign. In March, the president converted the South Lawn of the White House into a temporary Tesla showroom, showcasing five electric vehicles and promising to buy one for himself.
Elon Musk and his son x† depart the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on Wednesday. Photo: Oliver/EPA
However, the polls painted a different story. Last month, a national survey by Marquette University Law School revealed only a 41% approval rating for Musk’s management of DOGE, while 58% disapproved. Around 60% of respondents held unfavorable views of Musk, compared to just 38% who viewed him positively.
Congressman Khanna, a Democrat familiar with Musk for over a decade, remarked, “As his approval ratings decline, so do Trump’s fortunes. When Trump’s ratings drop, he tends to distance himself from people in a similar situation. It’s indicative of his fleeting charm and the feeling of abandonment.”
Khanna, representing a district in Silicon Valley, predicted Musk would not last beyond four or five months in this role.
At that time, Khanna wished for DOGE to focus on reducing the Pentagon’s budget. Instead, they downplayed the importance of reforming entities such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, and other targets.
“I noted he wouldn’t enact a $2 trillion cut anywhere. He didn’t even reach a trillion. It’s closer to around $81 billion. He learned the lessons many very successful business leaders do,” Khanna stated.
Certainly, Musk continues to face significant challenges. On Wednesday, the American Institute of Peace was revising its governance after a federal judge ruled it illegal to dismiss the board and employees by DOGE. On Thursday, a federal judge in San Francisco stated Trump could not restructure and downsize the U.S. government without Congressional approval, likely extending a decision that would inhibit federal agencies from executing large-scale layoffs.
Nevertheless, DOGE has already initiated deep cuts in the workforce and expenditures, attempting to shutter entire agencies, resulting in severe disruptions to government operations.
For instance, internal agency reviews reveal that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is “not prepared” for the onset of hurricane season next month, as CNN reports. The disaster relief agency, employing over 20,000 personnel, faced approximately a 30% staff reduction due to layoffs and DOGE acquisitions.
Khanna warned: “[The National Institutes of Health] have been harmed, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has been compromised, and the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] stands diminished, significantly impacting the State Department, all of which will require a generation to rebuild.”
“I hope the damage halts. We need to observe what unfolds, but ideally, these institutions will regain their strength.”
Even conservatives advocating for a smaller government have expressed concerns. Rick Tyler, a political strategist with experience in Republican campaigns, stated, “What they’re attempting to do is shrink the government. This isn’t reform; it’s merely dismantling and destruction.”
Tesla, a significant source of Musk’s wealth, has incurred considerable brand damage and lost sales, particularly due to political engagements with Trump. He has also shown support for the far-right anti-immigrant AFD party in Germany. Tesla dealerships have become sites of protests and vandalism in the U.S. and beyond.
Perhaps Musk encountered his political downfall in Wisconsin. His investment of over $3 million made the Supreme Court race there the most expensive in U.S. history. He appeared in Green Bay wearing a cheesehead hat, popular among NFL Green Bay Packers fans, personally handing out a million-dollar check to supporters.
Musk will address City Hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on March 30th. He spent $3 million on a candidate who lost by 10 points in the judicial election. Photo: Jeffrey Phelps/AP
However, the candidate he backed lost ground, dropping 10 percentage points. Democrats successfully mobilized voters to counter his influence in the elections dubbed “People vs Musk.”
This week, Musk stated at Bloomberg’s Qatar Economic Forum in Doha that the biggest funder in Republican politics might just “take his toys and go home,” as reported by the Associated Press.
Clearly, Musk and his disruptive approach are politically impactful for Republicans seeking re-election next year. Democrats across the nation are expected to leverage Musk as a political boogeyman in attack ads against their opponents.
Tyler remarked: “I believe he has instigated enough conflicts, and his relationships have diminished Trump’s standing, which poses a threat to his party and agenda.”
Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, noted: “There is a trial balloon regarding how they would reduce federal employment. If it worked and people approved, they could have continuously used him as a scapegoat and as a tool for reform.”
“Donald Trump believes he is the sole generator of his appeal, so it’s hard to believe he sees Musk as pivotal to his popularity and stature, and I doubt he is mistaken about that.”
Microsoft has exciting news for those aspiring to hold high-ranking positions. In the future, we will all have AI employees under our supervision.
Tech companies are forecasting the emergence of a new type of business known as “frontier companies.” These companies involve human workers instructing autonomous AI agents to carry out tasks.
According to Microsoft, everyone will become bosses of AI agents.
Microsoft envisions a future where workers will act as “CEO of agents-equipped startups,” managing and delegating tasks to AI agents to maximize their impact in the AI era.
Microsoft, a key supporter of ChatGpt developer Openai, anticipates that all organizations will transition to becoming frontier companies within the next five years. These companies operate based on “on-demand intelligence,” utilizing AI agents for quick answers to internal tasks like generating and editing sales data.
In their Annual Work Trend Index Report, Microsoft stated that these frontier companies scale rapidly, work with agility, and deliver value efficiently.
The evolution of the AI Boss class is envisioned to happen in three phases: AI assistants for all employees, AI agents as digital coworkers handling specific tasks, and humans providing instructions to these agents for business processes and workflows.
Microsoft highlighted the impact of AI on knowledge work, where tasks across various professions will transition from code assistance to AI agents performing the work.
They gave an example in the supply chain industry where humans guide the system and manage relationships with suppliers while AI agents handle logistics from end to end.
Microsoft is promoting the deployment of AI in the workplace through autonomous AI agents or tools that enable users to carry out tasks without human intervention. Organizations like McKinsey are early adopters of Microsoft’s Copilot Studio products, leveraging AI agents for tasks like scheduling meetings.
While AI is expected to eliminate repetitive tasks and enhance productivity, concerns exist regarding potential job displacement. Reports suggest that a significant number of jobs could be impacted negatively by AI advancements.
Experts suggest that AI deployment may lead to job losses, but also create new opportunities. Organizations may rely more on AI workers to enhance efficiency and lower operational costs, potentially reducing the need for human labor.
Apart from economic impacts, replacing humans with AI risks losing the expertise of individuals who drive business innovation and maintain valuable relationships.
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.
It hasn’t been a good year for people concerned about climate change. The expected peak in carbon emissions has not appeared, meaning global warming continues to accelerate (see ‘Humans have warmed the planet by 1.5°C since 1700’). Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s election as US president for a second term and his pledge to “drill, baby, drill” new oil and gas supplies could lead the country to backtrack on climate action. expensive.
Similar sentiments against fossil fuels come from Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, who called the oil-rich country’s natural resources a “gift from God.” Aliyev made the comments at the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku. Ironically, this “gift” will become increasingly unavailable as a warming world dries up the Caspian Sea and strands billions of dollars in fossil fuel infrastructure. (See ‘We face climate disaster as the world dries up’).
Given the failure of politicians on the international stage to grasp the reality of climate change, other leaders need to step up, but surprisingly, mayors are the best suited to do so. Maybe it’s the position.
It will be essential for cities to adapt to cope with the unique impacts of urban heat.
Mayors cannot be expected to influence the Earth’s climate, but they oversee the well-being of more than 50 percent of the world’s population who live in urban centers. This number is expected to increase to 70 percent by 2050. Current projections are for spot temperatures to increase by 2.5 degrees Celsius. Adapting cities to deal with the unique effects of urban heat will be essential, from promoting green spaces to investing in buildings that can be cooled without air conditioning (‘Extreme heat makes cities uninhabitable’). (See “How can I survive?”)
The good news is that many mayors already recognize their responsibilities. London Mayor Sadiq Khan aims for the city to be net zero by 2030. Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, France, planted trees in certain areas and banned cars from passing. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also pledged environmentally friendly changes in preparation for the 2028 Olympics. Organizations like C40 and Climate Mayors are helping to unite local politicians around the world into action. This won’t solve climate change, but it will make life in a warming world more bearable for many people.
G7 leaders have raised concerns about China’s support for Russia in the Ukraine war and the production of cheap goods causing “harmful overcapacity,” despite German apprehensions.
During the annual summit held in Puglia under the Italian presidency, a 36-page report by the U.S. condemned Chinese subsidies on products like solar panels and electric vehicles, attributing them to global distortions, market disruptions, and overcapacity that threaten worker resilience, industry security, and economic stability.
Specifically, U.S. officials pointed out China as a major supplier of materials used by Russia against Ukraine, expressing concern over the long-term security implications. Despite Ukrainian President Zelensky’s assurance that Chinese leaders vowed not to provide weapons to Moscow, U.S. President Joe Biden highlighted China’s arms supply to Russia.
The U.S., Japan, and the EU, along with an informal eighth partner at the G7 summit, have expressed worries over Beijing’s heavy subsidies in green energy and technology sectors flooding global markets with unfairly priced products, creating stiff competition for Western companies, especially in the green technology space.
The National Security Council spokesman, John Kirby, mentioned plans to address China’s non-market policies having detrimental global effects. China’s top official, First Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang, is set to visit Brussels to discuss EU plans for increased tariffs on Chinese-made electric cars.
In a bid for diversity at the summit, global leaders from countries like India, Turkey, UAE, Brazil, and Mauritania were invited to participate. The G7 emphasized the importance of cooperation to address collective challenges, as expressed by Italian Prime Minister and G7 President Giorgia Meloni.
Russia faced stiff consequences at the summit, including wider sanctions, loss of control over state assets, and a new 10-year US-Ukraine security pact. A proposed $50 billion loan to Ukraine funded by interest profits from Russian state assets marked the beginning of economic pressure on Russia.
The final statement from the summit demanded Russia to cease its illegal aggression in Ukraine, pay reparations for inflicted damage, and explore legal options to enforce compliance. Russia dismissed the security pact as a nominal agreement and criticized the appropriation of frozen asset proceeds.
While Zelensky addressed Indian Prime Minister Modi on revising India’s reliance on Russian oil, discussions focused on the rising oil prices set by Russia and India’s growing purchases of Russian offshore crude.
The U.S. and EU impose price restrictions on Russian crude sales to prevent Western involvement unless sold below a certain cap. India, currently the largest buyer of Russian offshore crude, has not joined this ban, prompting calls for stricter price caps and actions against transportation exceeding the imposed price limit.
The skeletal remains of a 4,000-year-old Scandinavian man were discovered in 1916. Hitla island, Norway.
The male Hitra was approximately 169 cm tall, had blond hair and blue eyes. Image courtesy of Thomas Foldberg/Åge Hojem/NTNU University Museum.
“In 1916, the road up the hill to the Fausland farm on the island of Hitra was being renovated using gravel from the coast along the deepest part of Balmsfjorden,” said Dr. Birgitte Skarr of the NTNU University Museum. a colleague said.
“Suddenly, the workers noticed human bones among the sand and stones.”
“The bones belonged to an approximately 25-year-old man who died at the end of the Stone Age, 4,000 years ago.”
“He is believed to have drowned. At the time of his death, the sea level would have been 12.5 meters higher than it is now, and the site of his discovery would have been at a depth of 4 meters.”
Archaeologists also found and studied a Hitraean dagger and arm guard.
“The arm guard is a rectangular bone with two holes that would have been attached to the wrist of the bow hand,” they said.
“The guard protects your wrist from the impact of the bowstring when you shoot an arrow.”
“These pieces of equipment may indicate that he was a warrior.”
“It is impossible to determine whether the drowning was the result of a fight or an accident,” Dr. Skarr said.
“What we do know is that the Hitraeans lived in a very turbulent time.”
“Up until that point, most people lived as hunter-gatherers, and agriculture only became fully established in Norway at the end of the Stone Age, during the time of the Hitra people.”
“Although elements of agriculture had been introduced earlier in southern and eastern Norway, agriculture was first established during this period in central Norway, along the coast of western Norway, and in northern Norway.”
“We believe that agriculture was introduced by settlers who came to Norway to obtain more land, and they were willing to use weapons to do so.”
“So we have to expect violent clashes between the people who were already living here and the newcomers.”
“New people brought new knowledge to the country, not just about animal husbandry and agriculture, but also about other ways of organizing society.”
“They lived in a class society, had different worldviews, different religions, and large networks that spanned Europe.”
“This knowledge led to major political, economic, and social changes.”
“There is still much we don’t know about this dramatic period in Scandinavian history, and research continues.”
“His DNA is currently being analyzed at the Lundbeck Foundation Geogenetics Center at the University of Copenhagen.”
Recognizing probability in budgeting and forecasting
As an interest rate Returning to historical norms, the world has returned its focus to cost of capital and free cash flow generation. In order for companies to adhere to traditional heuristics like the Rule of 40 (i.e., the idea that the sum of revenue growth and profit margin must equal 40% or more, a metric that Bessemer helped popularize) We are working hard. Executives at both private and public cloud companies agree that free cash flow (FCF) margins are just as important (if not more important) than growth, and that the trade-off is he says 1:1. I often think about it. Many finance executives love the “Rule of 40” for its clarity, but placing equal emphasis on growth and profitability in late-stage businesses is flawed and leads to bad business decisions. I am.
our view
For companies with adequate FCF margins, growth must remain a top priority. There are good reasons to emphasize efficiency, but Traditional Rule of 40 Mathematics Is Completely Wrong When a company approaches its break-even point and has positive free cash flow,
The world has hyper-rotated to an FCF margin mindset instead of a growth mindset, which is counter to efficient business growth. Long-term models show that growth should be valued at least two to three times more than his FCF margin, even in tight markets.
Equivalent emphasis on growth and profitability in late-stage businesses is flawed and leads to bad business decisions.
why?
An increase in margin has a linear effect on value, but an increase in growth rate can have a compound effect on value. We provide detailed calculations below, but when we backtest the relative importance of growth and FCF margins, the correlation of public market valuations confirms it. Actual ratios vary widely in the short term (ranging from about 2x to about 9x over the past few years), but over the long term they are typically 2x to 3x growth value over profitability. It comes down to proportions.
Even the most conservative financial planner recommends that you can safely use a growth rate of up to 2x for late-stage private company profitability. Publicly traded companies with a low cost of capital can use multiples of up to 2-3x (as long as growth is efficient).
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.
