A Grande Otimização: como a batalha entre a Nvidia, Elon Musk e as Big Techs vai financiar a Revolução Sustentável da IA

A indústria tecnológica atravessa uma das suas transformações mais profundas com a chamada Guerra dos Gigantes da IA. Contudo, longe de ser apenas uma disputa técnica para definir qual o chatbot mais rápido ou preciso, a verdadeira revolução está a mover-se dos laboratórios para a economia real. Um estudo recente da Boston Consulting Group (BCG) com a Temasek revela que a Inteligência Artificial poderá gerar entre 500 e 530 mil milhões de euros por ano até 2028, impulsionando a eficiência energética, a redução do risco climático e a otimização industrial.

Para capturar este valor na economia real, desenrola-se nos bastidores uma batalha feroz sobre quem controlará a infraestrutura e a arquitetura destes modelos, liderada por figuras como Jensen Huang, CEO da Nvidia, e Elon Musk, fundador da xAI.

1. A Regra dos 80/20: quem vai realmente lucrar com a IA?

Uma das conclusões mais marcantes do relatório da BCG desmonta uma ideia comum: entre 75% e 85% do valor económico criado pela IA ficará nas empresas que utilizarem a tecnologia (indústrias, utilities, seguradoras e operadores logísticos), cabendo aos fornecedores de tecnologia apenas 15% a 25%.

A maior fatia deste valor - cerca de 259 mil milhões de euros anuais - estará na otimização industrial (manutenção preditiva, gestão de linhas de produção e eficiência energética), seguida da gestão do risco climático (65 mil milhões de euros) e das redes elétricas inteligentes (28 mil milhões de euros).

É precisamente aqui que a visão de Jensen Huang se cruza com os números do mercado: para que a Nvidia venda massivamente o seu hardware, a tecnologia precisa de ser adotada globalmente por milhões de empresas tradicionais, e não apenas por um pequeno grupo de gigantes do ecossistema fechado.

2. O império do hardware e a aposta nos Modelos Abertos

Para acelerar esta adoção massiva, o CEO da Nvidia adotou uma estratégia clara: defender o ecossistema global de código aberto (open weights). Como reportado pela PCGuia sobre as declarações de Jensen Huang, o executivo defende abertamente que as empresas devem ser livres de utilizar modelos abertos desenvolvidos em qualquer parte do mundo - incluindo na China, como as soluções da Moonshot AI ou da DeepSeek.

Para a fabricante de chips, afastar os receios geopolíticos sobre alegados backdoors é vital. A verdadeira segurança e inovação advêm da transparência e da auditabilidade que o modelo aberto oferece, ponto detalhado pela Cybernews sobre a visão de Jensen Huang. Quanto mais baratos e acessíveis forem os modelos de IA, mais rápido a indústria transformadora e as redes elétricas implementarão a tecnologia, disparando a procura pelas GPUs da Nvidia.

3. Aliança indireta com Elon Musk e o fenómeno Grok

Elon Musk enquadra-se nesta dinâmica a partir da sua plataforma X e da sua empresa xAI. Ao desafiar o domínio de gigantes como a Meta, a Microsoft e a Google, Musk apostou na disponibilização aberta de partes do Grok, posicionando-se ao lado dos defensores do ecossistema open source.

Para treinar estes modelos em grande escala, a xAI tornou-se uma das maiores clientes de infraestrutura computacional do mundo. Esta relação gera uma convergência direta: Musk necessita do poder de processamento da Nvidia para rivalizar com a OpenAI, enquanto Huang beneficia destes investimentos para acelerar a construção dos data centers do futuro. Como destaca o TradingView sobre a posição pública da Nvidia, a coexistência entre modelos abertos e fechados é o único caminho para viabilizar a transformação digital da economia.

4. A reação geopolítica: Donald Trump e Xi Jinping

A intersecção entre o valor económico da IA e o controlo da tecnologia transformou a disputa numa prioridade de segurança nacional entre as duas maiores potências globais:

1. A Administração Donald Trump: em Washington, a resposta ao avanço dos modelos abertos chineses tem sido de retórica punitiva. A administração Trump pondera impor sanções e restrições governamentais para proibir o uso de IA aberta de origem chinesa em empresas americanas, sob alegações de apropriação de propriedade intelectual. Esta postura colocou Jensen Huang em rota de colisão com a Casa Branca, tendo o CEO alertado que banir o ecossistema aberto prejudicará a competitividade do próprio tecido empresarial americano.
2. A estratégia de Xi Jinping: por outro lado, o Presidente chinês, Xi Jinping, vê nos modelos abertos uma oportunidade estratégica. Ao apoiar laboratórios locais para lançarem modelos de código aberto de alta qualidade e custos reduzidos, a China contorna as sanções ao hardware, exporta tecnologia para o Sul Global e fornece às indústrias as ferramentas de otimização energética e operacional descritas no relatório da BCG.

Para entender melhor como estas tensões políticas e económicas se desenrolam no terreno, vale a pena acompanhar a análise sobre a viagem de Jensen Huang à China, que ilustra o papel do CEO da Nvidia como uma ponte diplomática informal entre Washington, Pequim e os maiores investidores mundiais de IA.

O Atolamento das Vaidades

Ontem, Donald Trump declarou que a guerra com o Irão está a correr “melhor do que qualquer um esperava”. Está a delirar, é claro. E os seus delírios são a razão pela qual o preço do petróleo voltou a cerca de 100 dólares por barril e - como explicarei em breve  - o preço real é muito superior a isso.

A guerra gratuita de Trump contra o Irão transformou-se num atoleiro notável - notável porque a única coisa que mantém a guerra em curso é a vaidade de Trump. Perdeu efectivamente a guerra nos primeiros tempos, quando se tornou evidente que o regime de linha dura do Irão tinha sobrevivido ao ataque inicial e que os militares norte-americanos não conseguiam manter o Estreito de Ormuz aberto. Mas Trump é psicologicamente incapaz de admitir o fracasso. Assim, a guerra continua, enfraquecendo os Estados Unidos a cada dia, enquanto ele procura alguma forma de transformar a sua derrota abjeta numa vitória.

E as declarações de que as consequências económicas da guerra foram contidas parecem agora perigosamente prematuras.

É verdade que, durante o primeiro fecho do Estreito, os preços do petróleo não subiram tanto como muitos analistas - incluindo eu próprio, em certa medida - esperavam. Parte do petróleo do Golfo Pérsico chegou aos mercados contornando o Estreito de Ormuz, principalmente através do oleoduto saudita para o Mar Vermelho. A China reduziu drasticamente as suas importações de petróleo. E o mundo compensou uma parte substancial da escassez de oferta reduzindo os seus stocks.

O segundo encerramento de Ormuz pode ser pior, por vários motivos. Os aliados houthis do Irão estão agora a atacar navios no Mar Vermelho, ameaçando esta válvula de segurança. Além disso, os stocks estão agora muito mais baixos do que quando o conflito começou e não podem servir de reserva daqui para a frente.

Talvez o mais importante a perceber sobre a situação actual, no entanto, é que o petróleo é mais caro do que parece.

Ninguém queima petróleo bruto. O petróleo precisa de ser refinado para se transformar em combustíveis utilizáveis, principalmente gasolina e gasóleo. E há uma escassez global de capacidade de refinação. Isto reflecte em parte a guerra no Irão, mas também a campanha surpreendentemente eficaz da Ucrânia contra a infra-estrutura energética de Vladimir Putin.

Esta escassez de capacidade de refinação ajudou a manter os preços do crude baixos - porquê comprar crude se não se pode refiná-lo? Mais importante, porém, significa que os preços dos produtos petrolíferos para os consumidores finais são muito mais elevados do que seria de esperar, tendo em conta o preço do petróleo bruto. O gráfico no início deste post mostra o preço do gasóleo no mercado grossista, que mesmo durante o cessar-fogo falhado estava muito acima do seu nível pré-guerra e está agora próximo do seu pico anterior.

O spread geral - a diferença de preço entre um barril de crude e o preço dos produtos refinados a partir desse barril - explodiu, de cerca de 25 dólares por barril antes da guerra para mais de 65 dólares agora:

Do ponto de vista dos consumidores finais, isto equivale a um aumento de 40 dólares por barril no preço do crude. Na prática, o mundo está a lidar com o equivalente a 140 dólares pelo petróleo, embora o preço anunciado ronde "apenas" os 100 dólares.

Prenuncia uma catástrofe económica? Não, ainda não. Mas não é um bom sinal.

A desaceleração da inflação no mês passado parece agora temporária. Com os preços da energia a subirem novamente - para não falar do impacto inflacionista da nova ronda tarifária de Trump, imposta sob a desculpa absurda de que as nações não estão a fazer o suficiente para acabar com o trabalho forçado - as taxas de juro vão quase certamente subir, intensificando a pressão sobre as famílias e as empresas. As taxas de longo prazo, refletindo os futuros aumentos esperados da Fed, são já demasiado elevadas:

Ainda assim, as coisas podiam ser piores. E podem estar prestes a piorar. O Wall Street Journal refere que Trump está em "modo de vingança" e que as forças armadas dos EUA estão a enviar tropas para o Médio Oriente.

E se Trump insistir no fracasso, intensificando drasticamente a sua guerra desastrosa, os impactos económicos, para não falar dos humanos, serão muito mais graves.

Paul Krugman

Rússia e China adotam “movimento dissimulado de apropriação territorial” no Ártico: “A Noruega tem soberania sobre Svalbard, ponto final”

Durante mais de duas décadas, um par de imponentes leões de granito ladeou a entrada de um edifício vermelho-ferrugem em pleno Círculo Polar Ártico. Já não é assim. No mês passado, desapareceram - e a sua ausência conta uma história sobre a geopolítica cada vez mais tensa no topo do mundo.

Os leões desaparecidos guardavam outrora uma estação de investigação operada pela China na colónia de Ny-Ålesund, em Svalbard, um arquipélago situado entre a Noruega continental e o Polo Norte. Em maio, foram removidos pela empresa estatal norueguesa que gere a colónia; em junho, a mesma empresa retirou uma placa do edifício onde se lia "Estação Rio Amarelo".

A iniciativa da Noruega é vista por alguns especialistas como parte de uma tentativa de reforçar a sua soberania sobre esta parcela do Ártico, face a mudanças geopolíticas e climáticas sísmicas.

A Gronelândia pode dominar as preocupações no Ártico - com o Presidente Donald Trump a tentar repetidamente reivindicá-la para os Estados Unidos, invocando a necessidade de contrariar a crescente influência de Pequim e Moscovo -, mas outra disputa potencialmente explosiva está a desenrolar-se em Svalbard, onde a China e a Rússia já têm presença. E há quem receie que o mundo não esteja a prestar atenção suficiente.

Um arquipélago único sob pressão

Svalbard é um grupo de ilhas singular. Tem apenas cerca de 3000 residentes, mas não tem população nativa e as mulheres não podem dar à luz ali. É o lar da cidade permanentemente habitada mais a norte do planeta, Longyearbyen, e é o local que mais rapidamente aquece na Terra, a um ritmo cerca de seis a sete vezes superior à média global.

Um tratado centenário confere à Noruega total soberania, mas também permite que cidadãos de quase 50 países signatários, incluindo a China e a Rússia, vivam e trabalhem em Svalbard sem necessidade de visto.

Nas últimas décadas, tornou-se o principal centro mundial de ciência ártica e um local raro de cooperação internacional.

"Pessoas de todo o mundo, com enormes diferenças culturais... juntam-se para colaborar", afirmou Hedda Andersen, uma glaciologista que trabalha na Estação de Investigação de Ny-Ålesund.

Contudo, esta harmonia está a desgastar-se à medida que a orgânica única de Svalbard colide com relações internacionais cada vez mais fraturadas e com a busca dos países por influência num Ártico em rápido aquecimento.

"Estamos a ver o contexto geopolítico mais amplo a transbordar para o território de uma forma que não se via nas décadas anteriores", explicou Otto Svendsen, investigador associado no Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

A atração estratégica de Svalbard

A geografia de Svalbard é grande parte do que a torna tão atraente:

Recursos: o seu oceano ostenta ricas zonas de pesca e minerais críticos no fundo do mar.

Tecnologia: está numa localização privilegiada para controlar e descarregar dados de satélites de órbita polar usados para ciência, previsão meteorológica e defesa.

Militar: situa-se perto da Península de Kola, na Rússia, uma das regiões militares mais estratégicas de Moscovo, onde se encontra grande parte do seu arsenal nuclear marítimo.

O arquipélago é de fácil acesso. Voos regulares a partir da Noruega continental permitem chegar ao alto Ártico em poucas horas. Dezenas de países têm presença em Svalbard, incluindo a Rússia, a China, o Reino Unido, a Itália, o Japão e a Polónia. As suas estações de investigação servem de porta de entrada para a influência no Ártico, funcionando "quase como uma moeda geopolítica", sublinhou Serafima Andreeva, investigadora do The Arctic Institute.

O fim do "Alto Norte, baixa tensão"

Durante décadas, o lema na região foi "Alto Norte; baixa tensão", recordou Eivind Vad Petersson, secretário de Estado no Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros norueguês, mas "essa já não é uma descrição precisa da realidade".

A invasão em grande escala da Ucrânia pela Rússia em 2022 desfez a ideia de que o Ártico estava imune aos ventos geopolíticos e colocou o foco na dissonância de a Rússia ter uma colónia em território da NATO. Barentsburg, um posto avançado de mineração e investigação em Svalbard, é habitado quase inteiramente por russos e é vigiado por um enorme busto de Vladimir Lénine.

As ações russas em Svalbard têm inflamado ainda mais as tensões:

Em 2023, a Rússia realizou um desfile de estilo militar em Barentsburg, com uma coluna de camiões e motas de neve com bandeiras russas e um helicóptero a voar a baixa altitude, o que valeu a Moscovo uma multa da autoridade de aviação norueguesa.

No ano passado, o deputado russo Sergey Mironov sugeriu que Svalbard deveria ser renomeada como "Ilhas Pomor", numa referência a um grupo de caçadores russos presentes no arquipélago há séculos.

Retórica: A Rússia tem invocado o mesmo tipo de linguagem que usa para justificar as suas ações na Ucrânia, argumentando que precisa de proteger os falantes de russo em Svalbard. Tem também acusado repetidamente a Noruega de tentar militarizar as ilhas.

Nikolay Korchunov, embaixador da Rússia na Noruega, afirmou que Oslo "bate no limite" da estipulação do Tratado de Svalbard de que as ilhas não devem ser usadas para "fins bélicos". Korchunov acrescentou que a Rússia nunca pôs em causa la soberania da Noruega, mas está, sim, a "tentar trazer clareza" sobre a forma como esta soberania é exercida.

O papel da NATO e as ambições da China

O secretário de Estado norueguês, Petersson, rejeitou as alegações de militarização, explicando à CNN que o Tratado de Svalbard impede a criação de uma base da NATO nas ilhas ou a sua utilização para fins bélicos, mas que isso é "muito mais restrito e algo muito diferente de ser uma zona desmilitarizada".

"Svalbard é parte da Noruega; Svalbard é parte da NATO; Svalbard faz parte dos planos de defesa noruegueses", declarou.

Poucos acreditam que a Rússia esteja a traçar um caminho para uma ação militar direta. Já tem quase tudo o que quer em Svalbard e está focada na Ucrânia, apontou Andreas Østhagen, investigador sénior no Instituto Fridtjof Nansen, em Oslo. Em vez disso, a Rússia parece querer usar Svalbard como um local "para mostrar que não será recuada pela Noruega, ou pela NATO em geral".

Mas não são apenas as ações da Rússia que preocupam. Há também a China.

Ao contrário da Rússia, a China não é uma potência ártica, mas tem ambições. No seu documento de estratégia para o Ártico de 2018, autodenominou-se um "Estado quase-Ártico" e referiu repetidamente Svalbard. Tem também planos para uma "Rota da Seda Polar", um corredor de infraestruturas e navegação no topo do mundo.

Em 2024, quando a China celebrou o 20.º aniversário da sua estação de investigação em Ny-Ålesund, uma empresa de viagens chinesa levou mais de 100 turistas a Svalbard. Alguns agitaram bandeiras; um deles vestia uma farda de camuflagem com o que parecia ser um emblema militar chinês. O evento gerou alarme na Noruega.

Um porta-voz da Embaixada da China na Noruega afirmou que o país participa nos assuntos do Ártico "de acordo com o direito internacional" e que as suas intenções na região visam "salvaguardar os interesses comuns de todos os países".

O catalisador das alterações climáticas

Existe outro fator crucial nesta teia de tensões: as alterações climáticas causadas pelo Homem. No verão de 2024, Svalbard quebrou recordes anteriores de degelo, perdendo mais de 60 gigatoneladas de gelo (cerca de 1% do seu total), com as temperaturas a subirem cerca de 4ºC (7ºF) acima da média. Quatro dos últimos cinco anos estabeleceram novos recordes de perda de gelo.

As alterações climáticas são "em grande parte o que está a impulsionar muito do interesse geral em direção ao Ártico", referiu Østhagen. Existe a narrativa de que o degelo abrirá oportunidades económicas e estratégicas.

A realidade é mais complexa. Há décadas que se antecipa um fluxo de navios pelo Oceano Ártico e uma corrida ao petróleo, gás e minerais sob as suas águas gélidas - mas isso ainda não aconteceu. A região continua a ser dura e inóspita.

Ainda assim, se o degelo vai ou não abrir a região "não importa", considerou Torbjørn Pedersen, professor na Universidade Nord. O "medo de ficar de fora" está a empurrar os países a marcarem presença no Ártico e a exercerem influência política.

A Noruega aperta o controlo

Face a isto, a Noruega parece estar a apertar o controlo sobre Svalbard:

1. Alteração de leis: em 2022, o governo mudou as regras eleitorais para impedir que cidadãos não noruegueses votassem nas eleições de Longyearbyen, a menos que tivessem vivido na Noruega continental durante três anos.
2. Mineração: a Noruega assumiu a ambição de explorar minerais críticos numa vasta extensão do fundo do mar do Ártico em redor de Svalbard. O plano foi contestado pela Rússia.
3. Símbolos nacionais: seguiu-se a remoção dos leões da China e de símbolos nacionais noutros edifícios de Ny-Ålesund.

"Não existe uma estação de investigação chinesa em Svalbard", clarificou Petersson. "Existe uma estação de investigação norueguesa com inquilinos chineses. Essa é uma distinção que faz a diferença."

Para já, a Noruega mostra-se confiante na capacidade de "manter um certo nível de estabilidade nesta região". Mas o mundo está a mudar rapidamente. Com Trump a reiterar que os EUA deveriam deter a Gronelândia, a aliança da NATO sob pressão crescente e os países a posicionarem-se como potências árticas, o futuro parece cada vez menos certo.

Os países podem começar a pensar que "o que importa agora é o poder e a capacidade de afirmar esse poder", concluiu Østhagen, "e não necessariamente as normas e leis que estabelecemos ao longo do último século."

Fonte [PT] [EN]

Relacionados

Nem ilhas desabitadas fogem às tarifas de Trump. Um país “que ninguém conhece” é o mais afetado

Trump, Ending Decades of Protection, Opens Wild Habitats to Drilling and Mining

O pica-pau-de-cockade-vermelha, uma das espécies diretamente afetadas pela perda de habitat florestal

The Trump administration on Friday moved to open the habitats of imperiled animals to farming, drilling, mining, real estate development and other activities in what environmentalists characterized as the most severe erosion of protections for wildlife in half a century.

It did so by recasting a single word, “harm.”

For more than 50 years, the federal government has used a broader definition of harm to animals under the Endangered Species Act, a bedrock environmental law. It included any significant “modification or degradation” of habitat that kills or injures animals by impairing their ability to eat, shelter or breed.

The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in 1995, ruling against property owners who argued that harm should only mean directly killing or injuring an endangered animal.

But on Friday, the Interior Department and the Commerce Department announced a final rule that rescinded this longstanding interpretation. Under the rule, destroying an endangered species’ nest or habitat would no longer be considered illegal.

The change could open the door for fossil fuel companies, agricultural interests, land developers and others to disturb or even destroy the habitats of vulnerable species. Many species are already running out of places to live, and the new rule is likely to add extreme pressure, experts said.

Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, said it planned a legal challenge. But if the case were to reach the current Supreme Court, its conservative supermajority could enshrine the change, preventing future administrations from reversing it, said Karrigan Börk, an environmental law professor at University of California Davis.

The move on Friday was the latest in a series of extraordinary efforts by the Trump administration to weaken environmental regulations designed to fight climate change and prevent species extinction. In March, a panel of administration officials voted to exempt oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from measures to protect endangered whales and other imperiled species.

In a news release, the Interior and Commerce Departments said they were taking action to restore the Endangered Species Act to its original intent. They argued that in recent years, environmentalists and Democratic administrations had weaponized the act to block drilling and other development nationwide.

“For years, federal agencies abused the E.S.A. to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.”

The National Mining Association, a trade group, applauded the announcement.

“Our industry is absolutely committed to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species — and their habitats — but the definition of ‘harm’ has long been abused to serve as a punitive obstacle impeding critical projects” Tawny Bridgeford, the group’s general counsel and senior vice president, said in a statement.

Legal scholars said the government was acting without conducting scientific research into the impact of the change, a step that would typically precede a move of this kind.

The change is “undermining the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act,” said Lynn Scarlett, who served as deputy interior secretary under President George W. Bush.

Habitat modification or degradation caused by human activity is often the main reason that species face extinction. An intergovernmental body of leading scientists has found it to be the top driver of biodiversity loss worldwide.

Modifying habitat can easily harm individual animals without intentionally or immediately killing or injuring them, said Gary Frazer, who oversaw the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s endangered species program for two decades before retiring in 2025.

Piping plovers, for instance, need undisturbed beaches to nest and raise their young. They return to the same sites year after year, but only occupy them in the spring and summer. During winter, when the birds have migrated south, a property owner could develop a beach without immediately hurting any individual piping plovers. But come spring, the returning plovers would find themselves without a place to feed, nest and raise their chicks.

Or take red-cockaded woodpeckers, which are not migratory but require mature pine trees to hollow out the cavities where extended families roost. Even if a timber company or developer cut down those trees without causing direct injury to any birds, they could not survive without other unoccupied old trees.

Amphibians like California tiger salamanders begin their lives in seasonal ponds but move into upland burrows after metamorphosis. If a pond were drained during the summer, the salamanders that returned to the spot would not have the water they need to produce the next generation.

“We are at the precipice of losing 50 years of progress in the protection of America’s wildlife, because we know that the challenges for most animals are not that they’re getting shot,” said Justin Pidot, a professor of environmental law at the University of Arizona who served as the general counsel at the White House Council on Environmental Quality during the Biden administration.

After the rule was proposed last year, it triggered roughly 220,000 public comments. About 99 percent were against the change, according to an analysis by The New York Times that used artificial intelligence.

Among those asking the administration to reconsider were state wildlife agencies in some Republican-governed states.

“Threatened and endangered species are entirely dependent on healthy habitats,” wrote Bruce Kreft, the chief of the conservation and communications division of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. The proposed change, he said, “would have dire consequences.”

Ted Will, who was the director of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division at the time, wrote that “the greatest threat to the vast majority of species of greatest conservation need in Georgia, whether federally listed or not, is habitat loss.”

Attorneys general from 16 states — including Arizona, California, Illinois and New York — said the rationale for the change was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”

Those supporting the change included industries affected by habitat restrictions. Oil and gas trade groups including the American Petroleum Institute wrote that harm must involve a direct injury to a particular animal.

But the vast majority of commenters appeared to be individuals, often begging the government to reconsider.

“Everyone knows a species cannot live without its habitat,” wrote Ashleigh Smith of Port Angeles, Wash.

Environmental lawyers and activists said that projects are rarely blocked because of habitat restrictions. More often, individuals or companies have to create “habitat conservation plans,” which describe the expected effects on endangered species and detail steps that will be taken to minimize them, they said.

With the change, people and governments will still need permits for actions that would, say, crush or bury endangered animals, but not for felling a tree or polluting a river that the animal relies on, said Jane Davenport, a senior attorney with Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group. That means landowners would take fewer measures to protect endangered species, and also contribute less to offsetting their actions by helping the species elsewhere.

“A lot of our endangered species are on the edge,” Dr. Börk said. “If you lose that species, it is gone.”

More Environmental News

The Trump administration put a climate science critic in charge of the National Climate Assessment and fired an E.P.A. official who proposed tracking microplastics at a fish farm. On Thursday, the E.P.A. moved to loosen pollution limits on trucks.

Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets - How "termites" are undermining financial stability

Read on Substack

Dennis M. Kelleher

'Fracking', a técnica que mudou o panorama energético mundial

Chega a casa e acende as luzes. Em seguida, toma um banho de água quente e, quando termina, prepara o jantar. Hoje é frango grelhado com ervilhas salteadas. Esta poderia ser a sua rotina, tal como a de milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo que têm acesso ao gás nas suas casas. E é que este abastecimento tornou-se um dos pilares invisíveis da vida quotidiana moderna. Pelo menos em Portugal, está por trás de quase tudo o que fazemos. Tanto é assim que é mais comum questionarmo-nos sobre o seu preço do que sobre a sua origem.

Esta última questão não condiciona nem perturba o nosso quotidiano, mas também nos deveria interessar: de onde vem esse gás que sustenta as tarefas básicas do nosso lar? No caso nacional, provém de outros países, seja através de gasodutos ou sob a forma de gás natural liquefeito transportado a bordo de grandes navios metaneiros. E é aí que surge um termo que continua a gerar controvérsias entre o sector energético e o meio ambiente: o fracking (fracturação hidroeléctrica).

Como é realizado o fracking?

Os dados mais recentes revelam que uma parte significativa do gás natural consumido em Portugal é importada de países onde a exploração de hidrocarbonetos não convencionais, incluindo o fracking, tem um peso relevante. Por outras palavras, embora Portugal não explore gás natural através de fracking no seu território, parte do gás que consome é proveniente de países onde essa técnica é amplamente utilizada, nomeadamente dos Estados Unidos. Em 2024, por exemplo, cerca de 40% do gás natural liquefeito (GNL) importado pelo nosso país teve origem no país actualmente governado por Donald Trump.

Integrado no mercado internacional, este método de extracção permite aumentar a disponibilidade energética e, consequentemente, reduzir os preços. Um benefício tão relevante quanto superficial, que ignora as graves consequências desta técnica industrial para o ambiente, a saúde pública e a biodiversidade dos territórios onde é aplicada.

Não é de admirar que os Estados Unidos sejam, de longe, o país que mais utiliza esta técnica: foi lá que foi concebida, pelas mãos do multimilionário texano George Mitchell e do engenheiro Nick Steinsberger. No final do século XX, ambos descobriram que era possível libertar grandes quantidades de gás e petróleo retidos em rochas muito compactas, combinando duas inovações fundamentais: a perfuração horizontal e a injecção de fluidos a pressão muito elevada.

A fracturação hidráulica consegue atingir camadas profundas de xisto, para depois injectar no solo uma mistura de água, areia e aditivos químicos que fracturam a rocha: daí o seu nome. A areia mantém abertas essas microfracturas, permitindo que o gás ou o petróleo fluam para a superfície para serem recolhidos.

Por que gera tanta controvérsia o fracking?

Não são poucas as organizações científicas e ambientais que estudaram exaustivamente os efeitos do fracking nos ecossistemas. E é que, devido ao seu sucesso retumbante em termos económicos e geopolíticos na América do Norte, outros países com grandes reservas de combustíveis fósseis despertaram interesse por esta técnica: no mesmo continente, destaca-se o caso de Vaca Muerta, em Neuquén (Argentina), um jazigo que se tornou um dos maiores centros de exploração de hidrocarbonetos não convencionais do mundo.

O mesmo não acontece na Colômbia, onde a técnica ainda não foi regulamentada, embora o último governo se tenha posicionado abertamente contra a sua aplicação. O fracking, de facto, tem sido protagonista nos debates da campanha presidencial colombiana de 2026, e não é de admirar: num dos países com maior biodiversidade do mundo, a fracturação hidráulica pode colocar em risco ecossistemas de altíssimo valor ambiental, fontes de água doce e territórios habitados por comunidades rurais e indígenas.

É o que demonstram as evidências científicas: de acordo com um relatório da Agência de Protecção Ambiental dos Estados Unidos, o fracking pode fazer com que fluidos se infiltrem nas águas subterrâneas, causando poluição na água. Além disso, tal como explica a especialista Sandra Steingraber à National Geographic, em algumas zonas próximas de jazidas, a fracturação "é a principal fonte de smog". E não é só isso: pode até provocar terramotos em regiões onde antes quase não se registavam movimentos sísmicos.

Tudo isto, sem esquecer o impacto desta indústria na saúde das pessoas: os estudos realizados até à data sugerem que os bebés nascidos perto de poços de fracking podem apresentar uma maior incidência de baixo peso à nascença, parto prematuro ou anomalias congénitas. Além disso, os cidadãos idosos podem correr um risco maior de morte prematura.

Em relação a estas investigações, todas realizadas em zonas petrolíferas dos Estados Unidos, Steingraber salientou: "Isto é uma crise de saúde pública". Mas nada parece travar os países que impulsionaram a sua economia através desta estratégia. E enquanto o mercado internacional continua a crescer e a procura de gás se mantém em alta, os alertas científicos parecem ficar relegados para segundo plano.

Vergonha do Dia D! Pete, do Pentágono, envergonha os nossos heróis caídos da Segunda Guerra Mundial na cerimónia da Normandia ao comparar os barcos dos migrantes à invasão aliada contra os nazis!

O secretário para os Crimes de Guerra, Pete Hegseth, teve um comportamento extremamente desrespeitoso na comemoração do Dia D, hoje, na Normandia, aproveitando o evento solene para promover uma retórica anti-imigrante.
Enquanto se encontrava nas praias sagradas onde as forças aliadas lançaram a maior invasão da história para libertar a Europa da ocupação nazi, Hegseth afirmou:
«Hoje, diferentes praias europeias são invadidas por diferentes ideologias perigosas. Em Espanha, Itália, Grécia e Bulgária, chegam barcos e homens. Quando é que as capitais europeias farão algo em relação a essa invasão? Ou será que já é tarde demais?» [aqui]
Meu Deus. O Dia D foi o momento em que as tropas americanas, britânicas, canadianas e outras forças aliadas arriscaram tudo para invadir aquelas praias e derrotar o fascismo. Um dia em que parecia realmente que o futuro do mundo estava por um fio.
Desvalorizar a 82.ª comemoração desse dia com posturas políticas xenófobas e sem sentido sobre a migração é simplesmente inconcebível.
Em nome do punhado de jovens heróis que ainda estão entre nós com 100 anos ou mais, pedimos desculpa em nome do povo americano.
Num dos locais mais sagrados e históricos do mundo, o trumpista Hegseth nem sequer conseguiu mostrar algum respeito básico pelos que morreram, deixando a política de fora, por uma vez.
Que vergonha, Pete. Cala-te, porco.
Testemunho de Robert ReichToda Verdade aqui

Ouçam o discurso de Noah Eckstein: O fim da escuta - porque já não sabemos debater? Um manifesto anti-polarização

Noah Eckstein inicia o seu discurso de forma descontraída, recorrendo à estrutura de uma piada tradicional: um cristão, um muçulmano e um judeu entram num bar. Contudo, contextualiza que, na sua própria família, essa união resultou no casamento dos seus avós e, gerações mais tarde, no seu próprio nascimento como um judeu orgulhoso que também celebra as heranças cristã e muçulmana da sua família.

O ponto central da mensagem de Eckstein baseia-se na lição que aprendeu com os seus avós (um muçulmano paquistanês que cresceu durante a guerra de 1947 e um refugiado judeu do Holocausto): o oposto da divisão não é o acordo, mas sim a compreensão. Ele destaca que o mundo atual nos empurra constantemente para binários e visões polarizadas (esquerda vs. direita, progressista vs. conservador, nós vs. eles), exigindo sempre que escolhamos um lado.

Os seus avós discordavam em inúmeros temas morais e ideológicos, mas mantinham o hábito de se sentar à mesa a debater e a demonstrar preocupação mútua. Eckstein lamenta que a sociedade atual tenha perdido essa capacidade; os debates tornaram-se mais barulhentos, as pessoas discutem apenas para vencer ou humilhar o adversário, e o indivíduo do outro lado deixou de ser visto como uma pessoa para passar a ser visto como um obstáculo.

O orador salienta que tentar compreender quem pensa de forma diferente não significa desculpar atos monstruosos ou abdicar dos próprios ideais. Pelo contrário, compreender o percurso e as motivações do outro é uma ferramenta crucial, aplicável tanto aos grandes conflitos geopolíticos como às pequenas interações do dia a dia — seja com um familiar no jantar de Ação de Graças ou com um colega de turma na faculdade.

Ao concluir, Eckstein deixa um desafio aos recém-graduados de Harvard: quando encontrarem alguém com quem discordam, devem defender as suas convicções, mas também devem colocar-se no lugar do outro e escutar como se pudessem estar errados. Lembra que os seus avós morreram fiéis às suas próprias crenças e tradições, sem nunca cederem nos seus ideais, mas mantiveram sempre o respeito mútuo. Num mundo profundamente fraturado, a verdadeira mudança e a cura das divisões só serão possíveis através de um esforço genuíno para compreender a humanidade do próximo.

Uma pequena bio aqui

Fez-me relembrar uma citação famosa "O oposto da guerra não é a paz... É a criação!" que consta numa obra de teatro musical, "Rent" (1996) composta por Jonathan Larson.

Em 2005 estreou a adaptação para o cinema de Rent, sob a direção de Chris Columbus.

The American epoch of oil is collapsing. What comes next could be ugly

China is dominating the energy transition with astonishing result, while fossil fuel fascists in the US try to turn back the clock [Fonte]

“Farewell,” the flag-waving Chinese children chanted to Donald Trump as he strolled along the red carpet back to Air Force One at the end of his summit with Xi Jinping in Beijing.

The US leader claimed he was leaving with a cluster of “fantastic” trade deals to sell US oil, jets and soya beans to China. That has not been confirmed by his smiling host, but one thing was crystal clear from the two days of meetings: the global balance of power is shifting, from the declining petrostate in the west to the rising electrostate in the east.

Trump flew home to chaos – war with Iran, surging gas prices, spectacular unpopularity, friction with former allies and a 20th-century policy of “energy dominance” that seeks to turn back the clock, use tariffs and military threats to open markets, and enrich his supporters in the fossil fuel industry. The long dominant superpower increasingly appears a malignant force as it pushes the world towards ever greater turbulence.

Xi, meanwhile, presides over a country that has invested more than any other in renewable energy, which has helped to buffer its economy from the gas price shocks caused by the conflict in the Middle East, while opening up huge new export markets for solar panels, wind turbines, smart grids and electric vehicles. While the Chinese president’s Communist party still faces criticism for its suppression of dissent, its soft power deficit no longer seems so great when its main global rival is killing protesters at home and bombing schoolchildren overseas.

Why is this happening now? Tempting as it is to blame these global shifts on a single malignant narcissist in the White House, a more useful – and maybe even hopeful – analysis needs to take into account the tectonic changes that are shaking not just the foundations of politics, but the very nature of human power, as the world shifts from molecules to electrons.

History has proven that when the dominant form of energy changes, there is often a shift in the global pecking order. We are now in the midst of one such transition as the epoch of petrol, predominantly produced in the United States, Russia and Gulf states, starts to give way to an era of renewables, overwhelmingly manufactured in China. But the outcome remains contested, and the process could be ugly. The new energy order is winning the economic and technological battle – wind turbines and solar panels were already producing record-cheap electricity even before the Iran war pushed up the costs of gas and oil-fired power plants. But the old petro-interests still have political, military and financial might on their side, and they are using that to try to turn back the energy clock.

As a result, democracies across the planet are now threatened by what might be called fossil fuel fascism – an extremist political movement that breaks laws, spreads lies and threatens violence in an increasingly desperate attempt to maintain markets for oil, gas and coal that would otherwise be replaced by cheaper renewables.

Of course, there are multiple other, overlapping reasons for the war against Iran: its nuclear program, Trump’s need for a distraction from the Epstein files, and his willingness to adopt positions favourable to Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, to name a few.

But the wider context is that the Earth is becoming a more hostile environment for humanity. This is driving up tensions, exposing economic limits that have been ignored for centuries and redefining geopolitical realities.

Who is actually winning? In the short term, the biggest windfall from the Iran conflict has gone to companies, executives and shareholders in the US petroleum industry – a major source of campaign funding for Trump – that was struggling with low prices and a production glut at the start of the year, but is now enjoying a spectacular revenue surge while rival suppliers in the Gulf are choked by threats in the strait of Hormuz. Along with Russian and Saudi Arabian petro-companies, US energy suppliers look set to cash in for months to come, even as consumers pay more at the pumps.

At the same time, the war is forcing countries across the world to explore ways to increase their energy independence. In the next few years, that will happen by increasing domestic production of oil, gas and coal. By one reckoning, this has increased the likely 2030 output of fossil fuels by a fifth – an alarming setback for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and a victory for the petroleum industry and the far-right political groups it funds.

But that will not be the final reckoning of this war, which has reinforced the argument for both renewable energy and a concurrent shift in geopolitical alignments. With major oil and gas producers now led by ever more erratic and menacing authoritarian leaders, other countries are looking for alternative ways to generate power. Electric cars, for example, have never been more in demand.

The prime beneficiary is China, which suddenly appears a relative oasis of pragmatic, internationally minded diplomacy and energy independence. Beijing’s bet on renewable power and EVs over the past two decades is paying enormous dividends. Not only has this made it less reliant on fuel imports, it now has a wind, solar and battery export industry that looks set to dominate global markets for many decades to come.

Future historians may well see the Iran war as the moment the US unwittingly ceded leadership to China. If so, it would not be the first time that a change in the world’s energy matrix led to a reordering of the political hierarchy of nations. When humankind taps new power supplies, new empires rise and old ones fall. Realignments tend to be violent.

How empires fall

One of the cornerstones of geostrategic thinking since the start of the Industrial Revolution, 250 years ago, is that the country that controls energy supply controls the world. For most of the past century, that has centered on oil.

“Oil has meant mastery through the years,” wrote Daniel Yergin in his Pulitzer prize-winning book about the decisive role of energy in world politics, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. Yergin argues oil was a primary reason why Germany invaded the Soviet Union during the second world war, and motivated Japan to attack the US at Pearl Harbor. It was why the US launched Desert Storm to thwart Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait, which would have given Saddam Hussein control over the planet’s most abundant oil supplies. It explained former US president Barack Obama’s comment that energy was “priority number one” for his administration. Earlier this year, it was a primary justification by Trump and other US officials for invading Venezuela, which has the world’s biggest untapped reserves, and it is now a key factor in the war on Iran, which has the fourth highest supply.

Not for nothing has the old joke been revived that the “US is a very fortunate country because everywhere it goes to bring freedom it finds oil.”

But what is different today is the realisation that oil – once considered “black gold” – and other fossil fuels are now a toxic threat to the stability of the climate and the political world order. Now that cheaper, cleaner alternatives are available, the demand for these industrial fuels has to be artificially inflated, propped up by political lobbying, hefty subsidies, disinformation campaigns and military force.

The most spectacular example of an energy transition completely upturning the world order was in the mid-19th century, when the coal-powered gunships of the Royal Navy shredded the fragile coastal defences of southern China to impose a market for the British empire’s most lucrative and unethical commodity: opium. Up to that point, Beijing had been the capital of the world’s biggest economy for most of the previous 2,000 years but its historic advantage in manpower and culture was being lost to fossil-fuelled engines and the spirit-sapping drug trade. The Daoguang Emperor was so deeply in denial about the changes reshaping the world that his actions stirred rebellion among his own people. His forces were crushed by the superior firepower of an industrialised adversary, ushering in an era of western dominance that became known in China as the “century of humiliation”.

Britain’s empire also came to end – albeit it more limply – when its primary source of fuel – coal – was superseded by oil in the early-to-mid-20th century. Back then, the UK had no petroleum supplies of its own which meant it was at a disadvantage to the US. The power shift was confirmed in 1956 when Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt to try to secure the Suez canal – a vital route for fossil fuels from the Middle East. The US refused to help this imperial adventure by the old world, thereby confirming Washington as the dominant superpower outside the Soviet bloc. Since then, it has steadily expanded its primacy in the age of oil.

That era – and that supremacy – are both now winding down, as the pendulum swings again, this time towards renewables and back to Asia. In the past decade, clean energy investment worldwide has risen tenfold to more than $2tn a year. Last year, it was more than double that of fossil fuels, and for the first time renewables overtook coal as the world’s top electricity source. “We have entered the age of clean energy,” the United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, observed in February. “Those who lead this transition will lead the global economy of the future.”

There is only one contender for that title: China. It is impossible to understand what is happening in the US, Iran and Venezuela without looking there.

China looks to the future …

The government in Beijing has turned the greatest crisis facing humanity – climate breakdown – into an opportunity to finally lay to rest the “humiliation” of the opium war. For most of the past 30 years, it has been catching up with the west by copying its dirty, coal-driven model of industrialisation, which notoriously made it the world’s biggest carbon emitter. Now, though, it is leapfrogging its rivals on clean energy with astonishing results. For the past two years, China’s carbon emissions have been flat or falling, raising hopes of a historical turning point in the curve of global emissions.

Last year, the amount of wind and solar it had under construction was double the rest of the world combined, helping China to reach an installed capacity of 1,200GW six years ahead of the government’s schedule. Trump absurdly claimed he had not been able to find any wind turbines in China, though in reality the country now has more than the next 18 countries combined.

But the biggest success story is solar, which is now so cheap, abundant and efficient that its generation capacity in China has just overtaken coal for the first time. Meanwhile, petrol and diesel use is also falling because EVs account for more than half of car sales in China.

The country is also utterly dominant in supplying overseas markets with renewable technology. The top four wind turbine makers in the world are all Chinese. It is a similar story of majority market share for the manufacture and export of photovoltaic cells and EVs. China also controls supply of critical minerals, essential for batteries, AI datacentres and hi-tech military equipment.

Last year, more than 90% of the investment growth in China came in the renewables sector. Thanks to these trends, cleantech from China is affordable in many global south nations. The same is happening with battery technologies, which are spreading the market for electric cars to countries in Africa and South America.

China’s clean energy sector is now worth 15.4tn yuan ($2.2tn/£1.6tn), bigger than all but seven of the world’s economies. With every year that passes, this business becomes more important to the state, accounting for 11.4% of China’s gross domestic product last year, up from 7.3% in 2022.

To be sure China is simultaneously the world’s biggest investor in coal and far from a democracy in its domestic politics, but the scale of its renewable industry means Beijing has a growing stake in the success of global climate negotiations. Not just because it is good for the planet, but because it makes solid business sense.

The turbulence caused by the US-Israeli assault on Iran only strengthens its sales pitch.

… while the US goes backwards

While the rest of the world looks for an exit ramp off the exhaust-fumed highway on to a cleaner, electrified, 21st-century freeway, Trump has pulled a U-turn and is accelerating back towards 20th-century smoke stacks without so much as a glance in the rearview mirror.

On the same day he was sworn in for his second term in the White House, Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the 2015 Paris Agreement, as he did in his first term.

But this time he has also announced that he will quit the entire UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Cop process that was put in place at the 1992 Earth Summit. In February his administration repealed the 2009 “endangerment finding”, the core US government determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health that has been the legal basis for almost all federal climate regulation over the past 17 years. Without it, power plants, factories and carmakers will have a freer pass to pollute the air and heat the atmosphere.

The US state has essentially been captured by a business group that puts its own interests above those of the nation

Trump has filled the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency with dozens of former oil industry employees. He has declared a “national energy emergency”, which was a cue for businesses to mine, drill and frack like never before. He has signed at least 20 more executive orders meant to incentivize fossil fuel extraction. And he has granted $18bn in new and expanded tax incentives for fracking, drilling and pumping.

His administration halted the closure of 17GW worth of power plants that use coal, the dirtiest and most polluting fuel, and ordered the US defense department to procure billions of dollars of coal power. Industry executives have shown gratitude with donations and a trophy for the “undisputed champion of beautiful clean coal” given to Trump by the CEO of the largest coal company in the US.

He also used the military – and the federal budget – to assist the petroleum industry by seizing control of Venezuela. (It is not a coincidence that Venezuela and Iran are both key partners to China.) Domination of this country will give the US more influence in setting global oil prices. But for whose benefit? Donald Trump said US companies would tap these fossil fuels and “start making money for the country”. In fact, most of the first billion dollars in revenue was initially stashed offshore in a bank account in Qatar.

After Trump ordered the bombing of Iran, he initially celebrated the spike in crude values: “When oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” he said, though the “we” evidently did not include the majority of Americans suffering from higher gas costs.

Meanwhile, his government has accelerated the phaseout of tax credits for renewable projects, which has had a chilling effect on the sector with $22bn in clean energy projects cancelled and wind power investment down to its lowest level in a decade. “My goal is to not let any windmill be built. They’re losers,” Trump told oil executives in January.

By the end of last year, downsizing and more than 60 project cancellations began to shake investor confidence in US renewables.

Three dollars of clean energy investment were abandoned for every one dollar announced in 2025, according to an analysis by the E2 thinktank. The record number of factory closures and project reversals eliminated 38,031 clean energy manufacturing jobs – more than in the previous three years combined. Worst hit was the EV and battery sectors, which each accounted for more than $21bn in lost investment. This eroded the global competitiveness of US carmakers at the worst possible moment when EV sales had just started to overtake those of petrol vehicles.

Oil in command

The US state has essentially been captured by a business group that puts its own interests above those of the nation.

During the last presidential election, Trump invited 20 oil executives, including the heads of Chevron, Exxon and Occidental, to his club in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, saying he would scrap barriers to drilling, resume gas exports and reverse car pollution controls if they helped to bankroll his race for office. Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said Trump’s legislative agenda “includes almost all of our priorities”.

Big oil poured a record $450m into the campaigns of Trump and Republicans in 2024, according to the watchdog group Climate Power. Then after Trump won, the industry gave another $19m to his inauguration fund. And even though Trump is forbidden by the constitution from running for a third term, fossil fuel money continues to pour into his Pac, including $25m from oil pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners and its CEO, Kelcy Warren.

And these are only the publicly disclosed funds. Nobody knows how much secretive “dark money” is flowing through other channels, though it has been revealed that Trump accepted a gift of a Boeing 747-8 luxury jetliner from the oil-rich Qatari royal family. The similarly wealthy Abu Dhabi royals bought a $500m stake in the Trump family’s cryptocurrency business.

The White House argues the focus on fossil fuels is necessary for national security and “energy dominance”. Increasing supply, it insists, will bring down costs, trim inflation and stimulate the economy.

Ten or more years ago, this might have been true. But today solar and wind prices have fallen below coal and ushered in what the International Energy Agency calls “the cheapest electricity in history”. The Trump administration is denying US consumers these benefits. Electricity prices in the US rose more quickly than inflation even before the Iran war. Meanwhile, the hidden costs of fossil fuels, such as pollution and respiratory diseases hurt national productivity and add to the burden on taxpayers.

In the long term, it is hard to imagine a more self-harming policy. Between 2021 and 2024, the renewable sector was generating jobs 50% faster than the rest of the labour market. This is high-value employment with long-term prospects compared with jobs in the oil and gas extraction industry, which are projected to decline by 6% over the coming decade.

Most disturbingly, all of this creates a perverse incentive for the US to use its economic, diplomatic and military power to stimulate the market for fossil fuels.

The championing of fossil fuels depends on a big lie – that the US and the planet can return to an era powered by climate-destabilising fuels

Last September, Chris Wright, the US energy secretary and a former fracking magnate, went on an arm-twisting tour to Brussels and Milan to press the EU to increase its purchases of US liquified natural gas (LNG). In February, Wright stepped up the pressure, claiming there was “a climate cult” in Europe, after EU leaders agreed to reduce their energy dependency on the US in response to Trump’s talk of seizing Greenland.

The threats did not stop there. Wright said the US would leave the International Energy Agency unless it abandoned its goal of net zero carbon emissions and stopped referring to “climate stuff” in its analyses of renewables, fossil fuels and carbon emissions.

This explains why huge sums of money are now being channelled from the US to support far-right groups in Europe, who are campaigning on anti-net zero platforms.

The championing of fossil fuels depends on a big lie – that the US and the planet can return to an era powered by climate-destabilising fuels. It’s a lie that relies on threatening or downsizing scientific academies, truth-seeking news media and unfiltered online debate.

The US president has repeatedly called the climate crisis a “hoax”, “scam” or “bullshit”, ushering in what has been called a period of “climate hushing” (or “green hushing”). Essentially, this is a campaign to stifle public debate so that people are less aware of the dangers posed by fossil fuels and the benefits of cheaper renewable alternatives. His administration has announced plans to close down or slash budgets for the world’s leading science institutions. Meanwhile the president’s billionaire backers are helping to choke the climate debate in the media. After Elon Musk bought Twitter, now X, scientists report the social media algorithm is suppressing their voices and encouraging misinformation about the climate. Earlier this year, the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, slashed the size of the paper’s award-winning climate reporting team.

The Trump administration’s obsession with fossil fuels will dwarf the economic and human toll of the Iran war. The world’s hottest 10 years ever recorded have all occurred in the past decade. Extreme weather is increasingly out of control, pushing up food prices, prompting migration and sparking conflict. Many scientists fear the planet is heating faster than expected, pushing oceans, the Amazon, coral reefs, the Arctic and Antarctic ever closer to the point of no return. And worse is to come, with an El Niño expected to supercharge global temperatures in the coming year.

Throughout the world, a huge majority of people want their governments to take stronger action on the climate crisis. So fossil ambitions run up against popular opinion, which means its proponents have to rely on force to maintain control – with more oppression at home and more war overseas, an ever more extreme and violent response to ever more extreme and destructive weather.

All of this makes China suddenly seem a more appealing and serious alternative. This was not previously the case. Beijing used to project the opposite of soft power. Its political system is repressive. It continues to lock up journalists, artists and dissidents. But today there is a narrowing gap in its human rights record compared with the US, while its energy policy is increasingly aimed at halting climate breakdown rather than making it worse.

China, of course, is also building up its military and investing in energy-sucking artificial intelligence – though at much lower levels than the US. This is not to say its intentions are any more benign. But think of it, from the perspective of Europe, Africa or Latin America: do you choose China, which is becoming a modern electrostate that engages in multilateral decision making, and can supply you with more energy autonomy? Or do you pick the US, which appears to be trying to turn the clock back to the 20th century when it comes to fossil fuel domination, and the 19th century when it comes to imperial gunship diplomacy?

Former allies of the US are lining up to visit Beijing and seek balancing relationships with China. Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney; Britain’s Keir Starmer; Germany’s Friedrich Merz have made the journey in the past few months. Narendra Modi, the prime minister of longtime rival India, visited last year, as did the EU president Ursula von der Leyen. As he did with Trump, Xi has accommodated them from a position of more global authority than any Chinese leader has had since the opium war.

The fightback

You have to grasp at straws until your fingers bleed to find positives in the US government these days, but at least the Trump administration has clearly delineated the battle lines on the future of the planet.

On one side are the vast majority of the world’s people, all of nature, 99.9% of climate scientists and the fastest-growing, greatest-job-creating chunk of the global economy: the clean energy sector.

On the other is Trump and the primary producers and users of fossil fuels, who need enormous taxpayer subsidies to stay profitable and ever greater violence to quell public unease and global opposition. The latter controls the US state – including the military and ICE – and is allied with much of the money of Silicon Valley’s power-thirsty datacentre companies. (The US and its tech oligarchs may be hoping that AI can replace energy as the country’s source of global power – but China is keeping apace on that front, too.)

Will this fossil fuel fascism, that billionaire-backed campaign to crush a green transition by any means necessary, hold back the tide of clean energy autonomy? It cannot be ruled out. The closest thing the world has to a planetary spokesperson recently warned of the dark forces threatening the future of all life on Earth: “Some fossil fuel interests remain hellbent on slowing progress, spreading disinformation, pretending the transition is unrealistic or unaffordable,” Guterres, the UN secretary-general, said last month. “Let’s tell it like it is; the world’s addiction to fossil fuels is one of the greatest threats to global stability and prosperity.”

But the climate will not be bending to the will of even the best funded, most heavily militarised and artificially idealised US administration nor the King Canute at its centre.

Most people realise this. Much of Europe is resisting. China is defiant. India is moving fast on solar. Brazil is pushing a roadmap away from fossil fuels. Colombia just hosted the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. Even in the US, people want their government to do more to prevent global heating.

The fightback is under way in the courts, at elections and on the streets. The most populous and fast-growing state economy of California already gets two-thirds of its electricity from renewables and has pledged to continue expanding wind and solar. Even Texas, the historic home of the US oil industry but also the centre of wind power, is bristling at Maga-led attempts to curtail renewables. Michigan is suing oil companies for delaying funds. Judges in Virginia, New York and New England, including a Trump appointee, have issued injunctions against government efforts to halt windfarm projects. The US president’s popularity has plummeted and polls suggest his party will lose heavily in the autumn midterms – if they are allowed to go ahead without Maga interference.

Despite the deep pockets of the backers of fossil fuel fascism, their resistance will be futile. The movement could become more deranged and violent in its efforts to turn back the clock, suppress dissent and thwart China’s rise. But ultimately, the planet will have the final say.

Trump cuts to weather data could make forecasts less reliable, warn experts

As the US prepares for hurricane season and a summer of record-breaking heat, experts fear the Trump administration’s cuts to climate and weather data programming could make the federal government’s weather forecasts less reliable when they are needed most.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) late last year launched a suite of artificial intelligence-powered global weather forecast models which it said would improve “speed, efficiency, and accuracy”. In March, an agency official said those models were being trained with centuries of weather data.

Artificial intelligence is a valuable tool for weather prediction, but only when it is well-trained with ample data, said Monica Medina, who served as Noaa’s principal deputy undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere from 2009 to 2012.

Under Trump, climate and weather data collection has declined, said Medina. This year, the Trump administration proposed a modest budget increase for the National Weather Service, but a 40% cut to Noaa overall.

“We absolutely need AI to help us crunch the data faster and to make sense of more and more data that we can collect,” said Medina, who under Joe Biden also served as assistant secretary of state for oceans. “But right now, what we’re doing is cutting back the data collection … we’re going in the wrong direction.”

In an emailed comment, Erica Grow Cei, a National Weather Service spokesperson said: “Despite the misinformation circulating about missing weather and climate data, there is, in fact, a wealth of weather data collected each day, from satellites in space, to a network of weather balloons, to buoys in the ocean, and land-based sensors.”

But widespread reports show staffing cuts have forced Noaa’s National Weather Service to scale back satellites and balloon launches, key parts of the country’s data collection system. And shrunken climate programs threaten ocean buoy networks and other observation systems, experts say. Research into effects of the climate crisis on Earth’s systems is also being slashed, along with funding for researchers who analyze data and identify new sources.

“Weather times time equals climate,” said Craig McLean, Noaa’s former acting chief scientist and head of Noaa Research. “Cutting climate research impacts the skill of our weather forecast, and it arrests our advancement of weather forecasts.”

Those impediments are coming as the US is preparing for more extreme weather. A “super El Niño” is expected to spike temperatures, smash heat records nationwide and may boost hurricane activity in some regions.

Noaa will issue its outlook for the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season on Thursday.

‘A climate that no longer exists’

For decades, scientists used traditional physics-based models to predict future weather conditions, using complex mathematical equations to simulate the dynamics at work in the atmosphere. New AI-based models instead identify patterns in decades of historical data to forecast weather outcomes.

That new technology uses less computing power than traditional models – which must run thousands of mathematical equations to work – and has been found to outperform traditional models for some aspects of weather forecasting. But it also seems to have major shortcomings, experts have found.

Crucially, when it comes to predicting extreme weather events, new models still “underperform”, according to an April study published in Science Advances. Because their forecasts are based on past weather events, the authors found, they seem to have trouble simulating the record-breaking weather events that are becoming increasingly common amid the climate crisis, instead tending to predict weather more similar to historical events.

Traditional physics-based models don’t have this problem, because they assess and predict the weather outcomes that certain physical conditions yield.

“They don’t really care if there’s a different situation than we’ve seen before, because they can understand based on a rules-based [analysis] what will happen tomorrow,” said Sebastian Engelke, a professor at the University of Geneva who co-authored the study.

Chris Gloninger, a forensic meteorologist who in 2023 received death threats after speaking about the climate crisis on television, likened the problems with AI-powered models to the ways other kinds of infrastructure struggles to manage a world experiencing global warming.

“You have infrastructure systems in this country that are built on having a steady or static climate, and we know that that’s not the case as extremes are increasing,” he said.

Like stormwater systems that were not designed to keep up with climate-fueled heavy rainfall events or roads that were not designed to withstand climate-fueled extreme heat, “the AI weather models were trained on a climate that no longer exists”, Gloninger said.

This problem already has real-world implications, said Gloninger, noting that conventional models outperformed AI-based ones when forecasting a historic February 2026 blizzard in the north-eastern US.

If the government scales up its reliance on AI-powered models while reducing the amount of data that powers them, that problem could compromise federal forecasts, said Gloninger.

“It’s kind of a snowball effect,” he said. “You need accurate data for inputs for our forecast models, but we’re running on less data currently with this current administration.”

Long before Trump re-entered office, the National Weather Service had faced decades of understaffing. Recent cuts have exacerbated the problem, Gloninger said.

Noaa has not wholesale switched to AI forecasting. Instead, it says it is employing more artificial intelligence in its ensemble models, which blend multiple techniques to produce a range of probable outcomes. Cei said Noaa’s new AI-powered model suite is “an addition to our stable of weather models, not a replacement”, adding that it was “built on data” from the agency’s flagship physics-based Global Forecast System model.

But Gloninger said he was still concerned that rolling any AI technology into federal models could raise problems, particularly amid cuts to weather data collection and climate research.

“There could still very much be issues when you have a component of artificial intelligence that isn’t really trained when it comes to extreme weather and climate,” he said.

Neil Jacobs, current Noaa administrator, is “probably one of the pre-eminent modeling scientists”, said John Sokich, a former director of congressional affairs for the National Weather Service.

“I don’t believe he would rush implement something that has not been tested,” said Sokich.

But though Jacobs is “committed to advancing weather forecasting”, Jacobs is also “a Trump appointee who must back the Trump budget or leave his job”, said McLean. The administrator defended Trump’s Noaa cuts at a House environment subcommittee hearing in April, McLean noted.

“I don’t think Dr Jacobs would be in a rush to be replacing capacity with AI that’s not ready yet,” he said. “But at the same time, the man has demonstrated his willingness to be obedient to the president who appointed him [and who is] destroying the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

Weather forecasts serve “indispensable” practical functions, powering early disaster warnings, enabling safe aviation and shipping, and helping officials optimize sectors of the economy from energy production to agriculture, said Medina. Less accurate forecasting could pose dangers to Americans, she said.

“Weather forecasts are vital to our economy, to our health, and to public safety,” she said.