Europa: bombas de calor substituem a dobrar gás do Médio Oriente; que país lidera?

As vendas de bombas de calor dispararam em toda a Europa, ajudando as famílias a suportar os custos elevadíssimos do gás numa altura de guerra contra o Irão.

Segundo uma nova análise da Associação Europeia de Bombas de Calor (EHPA), as bombas de calor do continente fornecem tanta energia térmica como o gás natural liquefeito (GNL) transportado por mais de 200 navios-tanque.

Isto é o dobro do volume que chegou à UE em 2025 vindo do Médio Oriente e representa cerca de 7% do total anual de GNL importado pela UE. Segundo a EHPA, só em 2025 isso permitiu evitar custos de importação no valor impressionante de 9,7 mil milhões de euros.

Bombas de calor transformam o aquecimento na Europa

Quase três milhões de bombas de calor, que captam energia do ar, da água ou do solo e a convertem em calor ou ar frio, foram vendidas em 21 países europeus no ano passado, elevando o parque instalado para 29,3 milhões de unidades.

A análise indica que só as 2,9 milhões de novas bombas de calor substituem 2,5 mil milhões de metros cúbicos de GNL, o equivalente a cerca de 24% das importações da UE provenientes do Médio Oriente.

“Cada bomba de calor instalada representa mais um reforço da segurança energética europeia”, afirma Paul Kenny, da EHPA.

“O GNL é a fonte de energia mais cara e vem de fornecedores pouco fiáveis, mas as bombas de calor podem reduzir drasticamente a nossa dependência desse combustível. Na verdade, os europeus já estão a afastar-se dos sistemas de aquecimento a combustíveis fósseis, como mostram os nossos novos dados.”

Kenny acrescenta que o bloco tem agora de tornar o aquecimento limpo tão “simples e acessível” quanto possível.

O bloco prepara atualmente um pacote não legislativo sobre eletrificação, que deverá ser apresentado este mês. Para incentivar a adoção de bombas de calor, os Estados-membros são instados a reduzir impostos e IVA sobre o aquecimento verde e a eletricidade, medida que a Comissão já está a ponderar.

Muitos países europeus já oferecem incentivos para tornar as bombas de calor mais acessíveis. Mesmo Inglaterra, que historicamente registou a menor adesão a bombas de calor, concede um apoio de 7.500 libras (cerca de 8.638,76 euros) para ajudar a cobrir o custo de instalação, se forem cumpridos determinados critérios.

Que país europeu tem mais bombas de calor?

A França liderou no ano passado, com a venda de impressionantes 528 mil bombas de calor. O país tem agora o maior número de bombas de calor instaladas na Europa, com cerca de sete milhões de unidades.

A Itália surge logo a seguir, com 423 mil unidades vendidas em 2025, enquanto Malta (2 mil), Luxemburgo (3 mil) e Chipre (5 mil) ficaram no fim da tabela. Importa, porém, notar que a população destes três países em conjunto é de apenas cerca de 2,5 milhões de pessoas (face aos cerca de 69 milhões que vivem em França).

A Alemanha registou o maior aumento homólogo, com as instalações a dispararem 50%. A subida das vendas surge depois de o país ter abandonado, de forma controversa, um projeto de lei que obrigava as famílias a substituir caldeiras a combustíveis fósseis por alternativas compatíveis com o clima.

A líder parlamentar dos Verdes, Katherina Droege, cujo partido apresentou a lei original em 2023, descreveu a decisão como “um abandono completo das metas climáticas da Alemanha”.

Em termos relativos à dimensão da população, a Noruega lidera a corrida às bombas de calor, com 650 instalações por cada mil agregados familiares. A Finlândia segue de perto, com pouco mais de 540 instalações por cada mil agregados familiares.

Estes países mais frios derrubaram o mito de que as bombas de calor não funcionam com temperaturas baixas. Mesmo quando os termómetros descem aos 30 graus negativos, as bombas de calor podem continuar a ser mais eficientes do que o aquecimento elétrico.

Relacionadas

1. Bombas de calor conseguem refrescar a casa? E como se comparam ao ar condicionado?
2. Famílias da UE poderiam poupar mais de 2.200 euros por ano com bombas de calor e veículos elétricos

Katerina Papadopoulou - Notio Toxo ft. Chariton Charitonidis

No álbum Notio Toxo (Νότιο Τόξο), lançado pela conceituada cantora de música tradicional grega Katerina Papadopoulou em colaboração com Chariton Charitonidis, a expressão que dá título à obra significa literalmente "Arco do Sul". Neste trabalho, o termo não é apenas uma referência geográfica, mas sim o conceito central e o fio condutor de toda a narrativa musical.
Em termos geográficos e culturais, o Arco do Sul refere-se à rota marítima que engloba as ilhas do sul da Grécia e do Mar Egeu, ligando regiões como Creta, o Dodecaneso e as Cíclades. Historicamente, esta zona funcionou como uma ponte crucial de partilha cultural entre o Ocidente e o Oriente, desenvolvendo uma identidade muito própria e rica.
No plano artístico, os músicos transformam este contorno geográfico numa metáfora para batizar o álbum. A obra funciona como uma verdadeira viagem de navegação, onde cada faixa explora as tradições musicais, os ritmos e as histórias destas ilhas do sul. Através de instrumentos tradicionais como a lira e o alaúde, o álbum resgata a memória dos marinheiros, os sentimentos de saudade e as celebrações destas comunidades piscatórias. Em suma, ao dar o nome de Notio Toxo ao álbum, Katerina Papadopoulou quis criar um mapa sonoro que celebra a alma, a luz e o património cultural do sul do Egeu, unindo o passado da música tradicional ao presente.

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.

Há um novo estreito em risco por causa da guerra entre Irão e EUA - trata-se do Estreito de Bab El-Mandeb : custos do comércio global podem disparar

Iran Now Threatening To Close Bab Al-Mandeb Strait After Trump Threats

O estreito de Bab El-Mandeb é uma das rotas comerciais mais importantes do mundo e separa os continentes asiático e africano. É a ligação entre o Mar Vermelho e o Oceano Índico, através do Golfo de Áden, e também uma das vias marítimas para o Canal do Suez, que liga ao Mediterrâneo.

A localização do Bab El-Mandeb confere-lhe uma enorme importância estratégica, que o Irão ameaça agora, através dos houthis, os maiores aliados que Teerão tem na região.

Os houthis são uma parte dos chamado Eixo da Resistência, uma coligação militar informal, liderada pelo Irão, que reúne vários grupos rebeldes armados que lutam contra a influência dos Estados Unidos, Israel e aliados no Médio Oriente.

O estreito fica entre o Iémen, o Djibuti e a Eritreia e é usado por cerca de 20 mil navios por ano, que representam um quinto de todo o comércio mundial.

Desde que o Irão bloqueou Ormuz, por exemplo, tem sido usado pela Arábia Saudita como única via para exportar milhões de barris de petróleo.

Nos últimos dois anos, os houthis atacaram e sequestraram alguns navios na passagem por Bab El-Mandeb, mas agora ameaçam com ataques em grande escala, que podem obrigar ao fecho do estreito e que podem, mesmo, chegar aos navios que atravessam o Mar Vermelho.

A ameaça de eventual bloqueio surge poucas horas depois de o Presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, ter voltado a endurecer o discurso contra Teerão, incluindo referências a possíveis ataques a infraestruturas como centrais elétricas e pontes.

Neste domingo Ali Akbar Velayati, conselheiro do novo líder supremo iraniano, Mojtaba Khamenei, afirmou neste domingo numa publicação em inglês na rede social X que Washington deve encarar esta passagem estratégica “como encara Ormuz”, sugerindo que poderá sofrer perturbações semelhantes às já registadas no Golfo Pérsico.

Um analista do Atlantic Council não tem dúvidas do que pode acontecer se Trump não terminar rapidamente esta guerra: "O regime iraniano demonstrou o imenso poder global que pode exercer ao fechar o Estreito de Ormuz e ao pressionar a economia mundial. Se Trump agravar a situação ao atacar a ilha iraniana de Kharg, de onde é exportado 90% do petróleo do Irão, ou atacar a infraestrutura energética regional, o Estreito de Bab el-Mandeb tornar-se-á uma via crucial para o regime demonstrar o seu poder. Não estamos numa situação em que os iranianos estejam a capitular, já que Trump também está desesperado para negociar", constatou Danny Citrinowicz, citado pelo El País.

Se isso acontecer, será mais um golpe severo para a economia mundial, com os navios obrigados a irem dar a volta pelo Cabo da Boa Esperança, na África do Sul, aumentando exponencialmente os custos de milhares de produtos essenciais.

Yemen’s civilians fear fallout after Houthis enter Iran war

Miranda Sarmento quer taxar lucros extraordinários das empresas

Numa carta conjunta enviada este sábado à Comissão Europeia, o ministro das Finanças, Joaquim Miranda Sarmento, defende a aplicação de uma taxa sobre os lucros extraordinários que as empresas de energia estão a ter com o conflito no Médio Oriente, também conhecidos como “lucros caídos do céu” (windfall profits).

De acordo com a Reuters, a carta é assinada pelos ministros das Finanças de Portugal, Itália, Espanha e Áustria e defende que “dadas as atuais distorções de mercado e restrições fiscais, a Comissão Europeia deve desenvolver rapidamente um instrumento de contribuição semelhante para toda a União Europeia, com uma base jurídica sólida.”

A guerra no Médio Oriente tem provocado um aumento significativo dos preços do petróleo e do gás e o grupo de responsáveis pela pasta das Finanças nos seus respetivos países considera que uma taxa “enviaria uma mensagem clara de que aqueles que lucram com as consequências da guerra devem fazer a sua parte para aliviar o fardo sobre o público em geral”.

A carta dirigida ao comissário europeu para o Clima, Wopke Hoekstra, não traz mais detalhes sobre a taxa que consideram ter de ser aplicada. Em setembro de 2022, para responder à crise energética que se seguiu à invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia, a União Europeia chegou a acordo sobre um novo pacote de emergência que incluiu um imposto de 33% sobre os lucros excessivos das empresas de energia, uma contribuição que os líderes europeus queriam usar para financiar medidas para as famílias mais vulneráveis atingidas pela crise.

O regulamento europeu cingia-se, na altura, ao setor energético, mas o Governo português, então liderado pelo socialista António Costa, acabou por estender a contribuição temporária também à grande distribuição alimentar. Costa referiu-se a esta medida como um “esforço de solidariedade adicional”, fazendo c0m que os “eventuais lucros excedentários possam ser canalizados para apoiar a população mais desfavorecida”.

Agência Internacional de Energia recomenda teletrabalho e transportes públicos para aliviar pressão dos preços do petróleo devido a interrupções no fornecimento no Médio Oriente

Medidas surgem como resposta à maior interrupção de abastecimento na história do mercado global de petróleo e abrangem transporte rodoviário, viagens aéreas, cozinha e indústria. AIE destaca que governos podem liderar pelo exemplo.

Trabalhar a partir de casa sempre que possível, reduzir a velocidade em autoestradas e recorrer aos transportes públicos são três das dez medidas que a Agência Internacional de Energia (AIE) recomenda para aliviar a pressão dos preços do petróleo sobre os consumidores.

Num relatório publicado nesta sexta-feira, a autoridade mundial recomenda ainda evitar viagens aéreas sempre que existam alternativas e recorrer à eletricidade em substituição do gás na cozinha.

As medidas surgem como resposta às perturbações nos mercados petrolíferos causadas pela guerra no Médio Oriente. O conflito desencadeou a maior interrupção de abastecimento na história do mercado global de petróleo, com o tráfego através do Estreito de Ormuz, que normalmente transporta cerca de 20% do consumo global de petróleo, reduzido a níveis mínimos, segundo a AIE.

Cerca de 20 milhões de barris por dia de petróleo bruto e produtos petrolíferos transitam habitualmente por este estreito. A perda destes fluxos apertou significativamente os mercados, fazendo subir os preços do petróleo bruto acima dos 100 dólares por barril e provocando aumentos ainda mais acentuados em produtos refinados como o gasóleo, o combustível de aviação e o gás de petróleo liquefeito (GPL).

Para estabilizar os mercados energéticos globais, os países membros da AIE acordaram, a 11 de março, libertar 400 milhões de barris de petróleo das reservas de emergência, a maior libertação de stocks na história da Agência. Porém, a autoridade refere que atuar do lado da oferta não é suficiente para compensar a dimensão da perturbação. “Atuar sobre a procura é uma ferramenta crítica e imediata para reduzir a pressão sobre os consumidores, melhorando a acessibilidade e apoiando a segurança energética”, defende a AIE.

As medidas do lado da procura disponíveis para governos, empresas e famílias abrangem o transporte rodoviário, as viagens aéreas, a cozinha e a indústria.

“A guerra no Médio Oriente está a criar uma grande crise energética, incluindo a maior interrupção de abastecimento na história do mercado global de petróleo. Na ausência de uma resolução rápida, os impactos nos mercados energéticos e nas economias tenderão a agravar-se cada vez mais”, afirmou o Diretor Executivo da AIE, Fatih Birol.

As recomendações do lado da procura agora apresentadas “baseiam-se em décadas de experiência da AIE nesta área e destaca medidas que já provaram funcionar na prática em diferentes contextos. Acredito que será útil para governos em todo o mundo, tanto em economias avançadas como em desenvolvimento, nestes tempos desafiantes”, assinala Fatih Birol.

A AIE refere ainda que os governos podem liderar pelo exemplo através de medidas no setor público, ações regulamentares e incentivos direcionados, assegurando simultaneamente que o apoio aos consumidores é bem calendarizado e dirigido a quem mais precisa.

Ações imediatas para reduzir a procura

1 – Trabalhar a partir de casa sempre que possível

Reduz o consumo de petróleo nas deslocações, sobretudo em funções compatíveis com o trabalho remoto.

2 – Reduzir os limites de velocidade em autoestradas em pelo menos 10 km/h

Velocidades mais baixas reduzem o consumo de combustível em automóveis, carrinhas e camiões.

3 – Incentivar o uso de transportes públicos

A mudança do carro particular para autocarros e comboios pode reduzir rapidamente a procura de petróleo.

4 – Alternar o acesso de carros particulares às estradas nas grandes cidades em dias diferentes

Sistemas de rotação de matrículas podem reduzir o congestionamento e a condução intensiva em combustível.

5 – Aumentar a partilha de automóveis e adotar práticas de condução eficiente

Maior ocupação dos veículos e condução ecológica reduzem rapidamente o consumo.

6 – Condução eficiente para veículos comerciais rodoviários e distribuição de mercadorias

Melhores práticas de condução, manutenção e otimização de cargas reduzem o consumo de gasóleo.

7 – Desviar a utilização de GPL do transporte

Transferir veículos bi-combustível para gasolina pode preservar o GPL para a cozinha e outras necessidades essenciais.

8 – Evitar viagens aéreas sempre que existam alternativas

Reduzir viagens de negócios pode aliviar rapidamente a pressão sobre o combustível de aviação.

9 – Sempre que possível, recorrer a outras soluções modernas de cozinha

Incentivar o uso de eletricidade e outras opções modernas pode reduzir a dependência do GPL.

10 – Tirar partido da flexibilidade nas matérias-primas petroquímicas e implementar medidas de eficiência e manutenção de curto prazo

A indústria pode ajudar a libertar GPL para usos essenciais, ao mesmo tempo que reduz o consumo de petróleo através de melhorias operacionais rápidas.

«Manipulação climática»: gigantes dos combustíveis fósseis abandonam metas de neutralidade carbónica

Nova análise alerta que algumas das maiores petrolíferas mundiais entraram numa fase de manipulação para aumentarem os lucros

As grandes petrolíferas são acusadas de estarem a “abandonar discretamente” as suas promessas climáticas para justificarem a continuação do uso de combustíveis fósseis poluentes.

Uma nova investigação da Clean Creatives, um projeto para profissionais de relações públicas e publicidade conscientes do clima, acompanhou como as Big Oil têm vindo a mudar “de forma sistemática” a sua narrativa nos últimos quatro anos, apesar dos repetidos alertas sobre o aquecimento do planeta.

Intitulado Toxic Accounts: From Greenwashing to Gaslighting , o relatório analisa mais de 1.800 peças de campanha das gigantes dos combustíveis fósseis BP, Shell, ExxonMobil e Chevron entre 2020 e 2024.

Inclui anúncios pagos em redes sociais como o Facebook, YouTube, TikTok e Instagram, bem como spots de televisão, arquivos de bibliotecas, comunicados de imprensa, informação para investidores e discursos de executivos.

Grandes petrolíferas fazem “gaslighting” climático

No início do período analisado, as campanhas enfatizavam metas climáticas e compromissos com a transição para energia limpa, apresentando frequentemente as empresas como parceiras de transição.

No entanto, em 2023, a mensagem passou a apresentar cada vez mais o petróleo e o gás como “permanentes, indispensáveis e essenciais para a estabilidade económica e a segurança nacional”.

Em 2020, a BP passou da promessa de neutralidade carbónica e da retórica de “tornar as empresas mais verdes” para campanhas que, segundo a Clean Creatives, defendem a continuação da expansão do gás e do petróleo, ao mesmo tempo que recua nas suas ambições em matéria de energias renováveis.

A Chevron também abandonou o posicionamento “Human Energy” e passou para uma “mensagem nacionalista” que associa a produção interna de combustíveis fósseis à segurança económica e nacional, revela o relatório.

Investigadores alertam que, apesar das diferenças de tom, todas as grandes petrolíferas analisadas seguiram mudanças narrativas semelhantes, passando de se apresentarem como “parte da solução” para uma mensagem de “não podem viver sem nós”.

As campanhas passaram também a promover cada vez mais o gás natural liquefeito (GNL), a captura e armazenamento de carbono (CCS), o hidrogénio azul, os biocombustíveis e o gasóleo renovável como soluções climáticas, apesar de existirem provas de que estas tecnologias continuam a ser derivadas de combustíveis fósseis ou não estão comprovadas em larga escala.

“A velocidade com que as empresas passaram para mensagens centradas na segurança energética correlacionou-se com o seu desempenho financeiro”, lê-se no relatório.

“A Chevron e a ExxonMobil foram rápidas a orientar a sua mensagem para a predominância dos combustíveis fósseis e, como resultado, lideraram o mercado.”

O estudo concluiu também que a Shell, acusada no ano passado de minimizar o impacto climático dos combustíveis fósseis, deixou de se apresentar como líder da neutralidade carbónica para passar a destacar o GNL como mercado de crescimento a mais longo prazo.

Combustíveis fósseis mantêm-se “lucrativos” apesar da mudança de atitudes

“O ‘greenwashing’ assume agora uma nova forma”, afirma Nayantara Dutta, responsável pela investigação na Clean Creatives e autora principal do relatório.

“Em vez de fazerem afirmações falsas, as grandes petrolíferas promovem falsas soluções como a CCS e o gás natural, apesar de serem derivadas de combustíveis fósseis e de criarem uma dependência de longo prazo desses combustíveis.”

Dutta defende que as petrolíferas constroem uma narrativa que as mantém “lucrativas e no poder” perante uma oposição crescente.

A transição para longe dos combustíveis fósseis tornou-se um dos pontos de maior tensão na cimeira COP30 das Nações Unidas em Belém, no ano passado, apesar de não constar oficialmente da agenda.

Mais de 90 países, incluindo a Alemanha e os Países Baixos, apoiaram a ideia de um roteiro que permita a cada nação definir as suas próprias metas para avançar para a energia verde.

Apesar do apoio crescente a esta ideia, todas as referências aos combustíveis fósseis foram retiradas do acordo final nas últimas horas da cimeira. Isto significa que a esperança de um futuro sem combustíveis fósseis fica agora fora do âmbito das Nações Unidas.

Um relatório da Carbon Majors concluiu recentemente que 17 dos 20 maiores emissores em 2024 eram empresas controladas por países que vieram a bloquear o roteiro da COP30. Entre eles contam-se a Arábia Saudita, o Irão, o Qatar, a Índia, a Rússia e a China.

Irão: grandes petrolíferas e a guerra

“A transição do ‘greenwashing’ para a defesa da predominância da energia de origem fóssil é a mais recente reviravolta retórica na manipulação da opinião pública para aceitar as emissões de gases com efeito de estufa como apenas parte da atividade económica”, afirma Robert Brulle, sociólogo ambiental da Universidade Brown.

“Ao mesmo tempo, a guerra no Médio Oriente evidencia o erro da ideia de que os combustíveis fósseis proporcionam ‘segurança energética’.”

Vários especialistas têm usado a guerra contra o Irão para sublinhar a necessidade urgente de uma transição para a energia limpa, numa altura em que os preços do petróleo e do gás continuam a disparar.

A organização sem fins lucrativos 350.org apelou recentemente aos países do G7 para que apliquem um imposto sobre lucros extraordinários às grandes petrolíferas que, segundo a organização, estão a “lucrar” com a escalada do conflito no Médio Oriente.

Embora a guerra no Irão também tenha reforçado os apelos para que o Reino Unido abra novas licenças de perfuração no mar do Norte, uma análise da Universidade de Oxford concluiu que apostar nas energias renováveis é muito mais provável que faça baixar as faturas de energia das famílias.

“O que estamos a ver é a desinformação climática a evoluir em tempo real”, afirma Dana Schran, da coligação Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD).

“Em vez de negarem a crise, grandes petrolíferas como a BP e a Shell estão a reescrever a narrativa para que a expansão dos combustíveis fósseis pareça necessária e responsável. É um esforço sofisticado para proteger a influência política e os lucros, mesmo à medida que os impactos climáticos se agravam.”

Saber mais: 

‘You Can’t Live Without Us’: How Big Oil Pivoted from Climate-friendly Messaging to Normalise Dependence on Fossil Fuels

Shell abandons 2035 emissions target and weakens 2030 goal

EUA e Irão estiveram à beira de um acordo nuclear, diz Omã

O Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros de Omã, que mediou as negociações entre EUA e Irão, revelou que Teerão e Washington estiveram, por duas vezes, “à beira de um acordo” nuclear nos últimos nove meses. Por isso, Badr Albusaidi sublinha que o ataque conjunto de Israel e EUA contra o Irão foi recebido com “choque”. Para o chefe da diplomacia de Omã, o ataque norte-americano ao Irão foi o “maior erro de cálculo” da administração Trump.

“Por duas vezes em nove meses, os Estados Unidos e o Irão estiveram à beira de um acordo concreto sobre a questão mais complexa que os divide: o programa nuclear iraniano e os temores americanos de que ele se possa transformar num programa militar. Portanto, foi um choque, mas não uma surpresa, quando a 28 de fevereiro — apenas algumas horas após as últimas e mais substanciais negociações — Israel e os Estados Unidos lançaram novamente um ataque militar ilegal contra a paz que, por um breve período, parecera realmente possível”, sublinhou Badr Albusaidi, num artigo publicado no Guardian

Pete Hegseth - Trump’s Stupidest Cabinet Member

At a press briefing on Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth complained about a CNN report that the Trump administration had underestimated Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil traffic by closing the Strait of Hormuz.

“Patently ridiculous,” Hegseth told reporters, adding — even as the strait’s blockage was proving to be Iran’s most powerful leverage in the war — we “don’t need to worry about it.” He also denied that the U.S. bombed the school where some 175 children were killed. Hegseth added that, as to CNN, “the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.”

These remarks are remarkably stupid, on several levels.

First, CNN got it absolutely right in reporting that Trump’s national security team had underestimated Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil traffic. CNN cited “multiple sources familiar with the matter.”

The New York Times published a similar story, reporting that in the lead-up to the U.S.-Israeli attack, “Trump downplayed the risks to the energy markets.”

Even The Wall Street Journal, hardly a New York Times or CNN clone, substantiated the story on Friday, reporting that Trump rejected warnings that Iran would likely retaliate by closing the strait because he believed Iran would capitulate before doing so, and he assumed that even if Iran tried to close it, the U.S. military could handle it.

Second, Hegseth’s comment that we “don’t need to worry about” the blockage of the strait is not only false but flippantly insulting to an American public that deserves to know what the Trump regime is planning to do about soaring prices at the gas pump, directly due to that blockage.

Third, even if Hegseth believes that David Ellison’s ownership of CNN will silence CNN’s critical coverage of Trump, it’s remarkably stupid of Hegseth to say it out loud. “The sooner David Ellison takes over CNN, the better” is an open admission that Trump backed Ellison’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN’s parent, to silence criticism.

That deal is still pending, so Hegseth’s admission is likely to fuel even more opposition to it. California’s attorney general has already suggested he’ll go to court to block it. Now other attorneys general, the ACLU, and Democrats in Congress may join the case as co-plaintiffs.

Hegseth’s admission also confirms CNN’s worst fears that Ellison will throttle criticism of Trump - a fear that’s already caused several leading lights to exit. As Variety put it, “Anderson, cooped. Jake, tapped. Erin, burnt. Kasie, hunted. Wolf, blitzed.”

Ellison has already proven himself an unreliable steward of journalistic independence at CBS News. One departing producer there explained in a farewell memo to colleagues that she could no longer work where stories are “evaluated not just on their journalistic merit, but on whether they conform to a shifting set of ideological expectations — a dynamic that pressures producers and reporters to self-censor or avoid challenging narratives that might trigger backlash or unfavorable headlines.”

Finally, Hegseth’s denial that the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of nearly 200 schoolchildren in Iran is belied by mounting evidence that the U.S. did bomb the school. Hegseth’s further insistence that the U.S. “never targets civilians” is refuted by the U.S. military’s killing of at least 157 people on 40 small boats in the Caribbean without evidence they were “narcoterrorists” rather than civilians.

And, friends, this was just one news conference.

Pete Hegseth’s job is so far over his head that he can’t even see it. He evidently believes it’s to cheerlead and defend Trump with bonkers claims like “We didn't start this war, but under President Trump we’re finishing it” and “America is winning decisively, devastatingly, and without mercy” and “we will show no quarter for our enemies.” (“No quarter” means kill everyone and take no prisoners, which is a war crime.)

In the days leading up to the U.S. attack on Iran, Hegseth spent his time criticizing “wokeness” at American universities, feuding with Anthropic over safeguards for AI, and, in the day before the war began, forcing Scouting America to abandon programs aimed at promoting diversity.

He dismisses war crimes, pooh-poohs the rules of engagement, and projects unequivocal belligerence at a time when the United States is rapidly losing whatever moral standing it had in the world.

Granted, it’s difficult to select one of Trump’s Cabinet members as the stupidest. But Pete Hegseth stands out for sheer boneheaded ignorance.

“Pete Hegseth fala da guerra como se fosse uma criança de 14 anos a jogar Call of Duty, é uma pessoa muito pouco qualificada”

Who’s Winning from Trump’s War? Follow the Money

Today I want to talk about who’s getting the most out of Trump’s war.

That war is costing the U.S. about $1 billion a day. The Pentagon’s budget is around $1 trillion this year, and Trump wants an additional $500 billion. Because of the war, the cost of oil has topped $100 a barrel, and the price of a gallon of gas at the U.S. pump now averages $3.67 — up from $2.92 before the war.

The strain on the federal budget has given Republicans an excuse to demand further cuts in federal assistance to people in need. JD Vance recently kicked off a “war on waste and fraud” by announcing suspension of Medicaid payments to Minnesota, charging that the program is rife with fraud perpetrated by “bad actors in our society … [who] decide to make themselves rich.”

But if you want to find real waste and fraud, look no further than Pete Hegseth’s “Department of War.”

A new analysis by government watchdog Open the Books found that as the 2025 fiscal year was ending, Hegseth’s Pentagon spent: nearly $100,000 on a Steinway grand piano to outfit the home of the Air Force chief of staff; $60,719 on premium office furniture, including at least one luxurious $1,844 Aeron Chair; $12,540 for three-tiered fruit basket stands; $2 million on Alaskan king crab, $6.9 million on lobster tail, $15.1 million on ribeye steak, and $1 million on salmon; $124,000 for ice cream machines; and $26,000 for sushi preparation tables.

The Pentagon has failed every audit since it was legally required to start submitting them in 2018, and reports say it will continue to fail them at least through 2028.

The ballooning profits of military contractors are helped by their near monopoly on defense production. Since the 1990s, the number of prime contractors for the Defense Department has shrunk from 55 to five.

Keep following the money.

These giants have been spending more on enriching their investors than expanding production. Between 2020 and 2025, top military contractors devoted $110 billion to stock buybacks and dividends — more than double what they spent on capital expenditures — which boosted their stock values and the pay packages of their CEOs.

And who are their biggest investors and CEOs? Trump loyalists.

Larry Ellison’s Oracle provides Hegseth’s war machine with cloud infrastructure and enterprise software. (Reminder: Ellison is the second-richest person in America and a Trump loyalist on the verge of owning a media empire comprised of CBS, CNN, TikTok, Comedy Central, and HBO.)

Elon Musk’s SpaceX has secured billions in contracts for launching sensitive satellites and space surveillance. Musk’s xAI has received a Pentagon contract to develop advanced AI tools. (Reminder: Musk is the richest person in the world and spent a quarter of a billion dollars getting Trump reelected in 2024.)

Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies has landed multibillion-dollar defense contracts, including a $10 billion agreement with the U.S. Army to provide AI-driven data analytics and software to integrate AI, surveillance, and battlefield management systems. (Reminder: Thiel is a billionaire who contributed $1.25 million to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, including $1 million to a pro-Trump super PAC, and then $10 million to getting JD Vance elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022.)

Not to forget Big Oil, now enjoying windfall profits as global oil prices soar. (Recall Trump asking oil company executives for $1 billion for his 2024 campaign, in return for undisclosed favors.)

Among others benefitting from the turmoil is Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and one of the U.S. government’s chief negotiators in the Middle East, who’s busily raising at least $5 billion or more for his private-equity investment firm from governments in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

Finally, there’s Trump’s on-again, off-again ally Vladimir Putin. In just two weeks of war, Russia has reaped an estimated $6.9 billion from the increase in oil prices and the easing of sanctions.

What to do? At the very least, Congress should:

1. Prohibit defense contractors from making campaign donations or lobbying Congress. Why should taxpayers subsidize these activities?
2. Tax windfall profits from Trump’s war (or from any war). America has had windfall profits taxes during wartime before. Given the size of current windfalls, we need it again.
3. Cut the defense budget. Start by cutting it 10 percent each year it fails audits. This is particularly important during the Trump-Hegseth era of defense bloat.

As long as Trump and his Republicans control Congress and the executive branch, these reforms don’t have a prayer. Still, Democrats should introduce them and push for them. Let Trump and his Republicans go on record voting against them.

Vítimas silenciosas da guerra: como o conflito do Irão está a envenenar a vida selvagem e o mar

Florestas queimadas, fauna em fuga, mares contaminados: o impacto ecológico do conflito pode durar décadas — muito para além do fim da guerra.

A guerra no Irão continua em fúria — e não é apenas uma guerra entre estados. É também uma guerra contra a natureza.

Enquanto o mundo debate geopolítica, sanções e equilíbrios de poder, as verdadeiras vítimas silenciosas -florestas, zonas húmidas, fauna selvagem e ecossistemas marinhos - estão a ser destruídas, contaminadas e abandonadas.

Os recentes ataques a centrais de dessalinização no Médio Oriente realçam a vulnerabilidade das infraestruturas hídricas nas guerras modernas.

Isto não é simplesmente “dano colateral”. É sabotagem ecológica com efeitos que poderão durar décadas.

Investigadores e organizações independentes têm vindo a alertar para os riscos ambientais associados ao conflito. O Conflict and Environment Observatory tem documentado incidentes ambientais relacionados com operações militares e infraestruturas energéticas na região, demonstrando como a guerra pode gerar impactos ecológicos prolongados 

Florestas queimadas, habitats destruídos

Nas províncias de Lorestan e Kermanshah, ataques militares desencadearam incêndios que devastaram áreas florestais e zonas naturais. Animais fugiram ou morreram queimados enquanto as chamas se propagavam pelos habitats.

As explosões e os incêndios não destroem apenas árvores. Fragmentam ecossistemas inteiros.

Quando os habitats desaparecem, espécies que dependem deles — desde pequenos insetos até mamíferos e aves migratórias - ficam sem abrigo, sem alimento e sem rotas de migração seguras.

Segundo análises do Gulf International Forum, os danos ambientais provocados pelo conflito podem agravar problemas ecológicos já existentes no país, como desertificação, escassez de água e perda de biodiversidade .

Guerra tóxica, legado tóxico

Cada bombardeamento deixa para trás muito mais do que crateras.

A destruição de instalações militares, depósitos de combustível e infraestruturas industriais pode libertar uma mistura perigosa de poluentes: combustíveis, metais pesados, compostos tóxicos e partículas finas.

Incêndios em instalações petrolíferas libertam grandes quantidades de carbono negro e partículas tóxicas que permanecem na atmosfera e acabam por regressar ao solo através da precipitação, contaminando solos e águas subterrâneas.

Essas substâncias podem permanecer no ambiente durante décadas. O resultado é uma contaminação lenta da cadeia alimentar — um processo invisível, mas devastador para a fauna e para as comunidades humanas.

Organizações de investigação ambiental, como a Environmental Protection Knowledge Network, têm alertado para a necessidade urgente de monitorizar os impactos ecológicos do conflito 

O Golfo Pérsico e o Estreito de Ormuz: um ecossistema sob risco

O conflito não se limita ao território iraniano.

No Golfo Pérsico, ataques a portos, navios e infraestruturas petrolíferas aumentam o risco de derrames de petróleo e contaminação marinha. Navios danificados e instalações energéticas atingidas podem libertar grandes quantidades de combustível no mar.

O Estreito de Ormuz, uma das rotas marítimas mais importantes do mundo, é também uma área crítica para a biodiversidade regional. Mangais, recifes de coral e praias de nidificação podem ser rapidamente afetados por petróleo e produtos químicos.

Projetos internacionais de investigação e proteção ambiental, como o Eco Servants Project, sublinham que conflitos armados podem provocar danos ecológicos irreversíveis e dificultar a recuperação dos ecossistemas 

Quem será responsabilizado?

A comunidade internacional discute cessar-fogos, sanções e diplomacia.

Mas quase ninguém discute as florestas que arderam, os rios que foram contaminados ou as espécies empurradas para a extinção.

E, no entanto, as consequências ambientais da guerra podem durar muito mais tempo do que o próprio conflito.

A restauração de ecossistemas destruídos pode levar décadas — quando é possível restaurá-los.

Enquanto isso, a destruição continua.

Os animais, as florestas e os mares não esperam por tratados de paz.

Eles estão a desaparecer agora.