FIFA WC 2026: Amad's late winner steers Ivory coast to thrilling 1-0 win over Ecuador
Zopa Becomes First UK Bank to Secure New ‘Targeted Support’ Regulatory Approval to Close the Advice Gap
- Balanced Fund: Tailored for moderated risk, delivering a historical track record of 4.5 per cent average annual returns.
- Bold Fund: Calibrated for higher growth, achieving 9.3 per cent average annual returns over the same tracking period.
Orange acquires 100% ownership of MasOrange

FIFA WC 2026: McGinn's first-half goal sets up Scotland's first win since 1990
Air India denies putting pressure on families of AI-171 Boeing crash victims
Japan births, fertility rates dropped to record low in 2025: Report
UN report warns AI could soon use 3% of world’s electricity and more water than we need to drink
Amanda Turnbull-McRae, University of Waikato
One argument often used to quell concerns about the rising energy and resource demand of data centres is that artificial intelligence (AI) models will need less in the future as they improve and become more efficient.
But this seemingly logical thinking is a trap, according to a new United Nations report that quantifies the environmental costs of AI.
The report estimates that by 2030, AI’s energy use could double to consume 3% of the world’s electricity, produce emissions to equal the UK and deplete more water for cooling than the annual drinking water need of the global population.
It also anticipates the use of AI will follow an economic principle known as the “Jevons paradox”, which predicts that when technological improvements increase the efficiency of a resource, it leads to a rise, rather than a fall, in the total consumption of that resource.
The paradox is named after economist William Stanley Jevons who observed this effect with the use of coal in 19th-century England. Efficiency gains did not reduce overall consumption. Instead, the lower costs resulted in expanded use and higher overall demand.
As AI models become cheaper and more attractive, the report expects this to encourage new uses and higher volumes of use, eroding and possibly erasing any savings from efficiency advances.
To avoid falling into this trap, it lays out a roadmap for responsible AI use based on guiding principles of transparency, efficiency by design, equity and justice, lifecycle responsibility, global cooperation and sustainable use.
The scale of the problem
Last year, data centres already consumed as much electricity as Saudi Arabia, which ranks as the world’s 11th largest electricity consumer.
If electricity use doubles as projected by 2030, the associated carbon footprint would require 6.7 billion trees grown over ten years to offset this demand.
Data centres would also require 9.3 trillion litres of water and land nearly ten times the size of Mexico City.
Beyond resource use, the report also underscores the structural inequity at the heart of the AI boom, with only 32 nations hosting AI-specific cloud infrastructure and 90% of that capacity located in the US and China.
It warns of a widening digital divide between nations that build and control AI systems and those that consume them, with the latter often bearing a disproportionate environmental burden caused by mineral extraction and e-waste.
Responsible AI use
Two main forces shape AI’s operational footprint: how much we use it and how we use it.
This involves all tasks AI models perform, from text and code generation to image and video. Each of these tasks requires different levels of computational effort.
The model choice also matters as each AI system performs these task with distinct energy and environmental costs.
The report argues responsible AI requires full value-chain governance, from mineral sourcing to recycling and safe disposal.
It calls for a twinning of capability and environmental stewardship – thinking about both what AI can do for us and the protection of the natural environment.
This would mean making environmental disclosures a routine part of AI development, at both the model and task level, and incorporating projected AI demand in climate and energy planning.
Responsible AI is crucial as countries are promoting and adopting AI across government and the public sector.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, the government has launched a national AI strategy and a public service AI framework.
While the framework was informed by the OECD’s values-based AI principles, including inclusive and sustainable development, there is no requirement for environmental disclosures and no regulator compiling energy use or emissions.
Likewise in Australia, improving public services is part of the national AI plan. For example, the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia has created Bowerbird, a machine learning-enabled mass audio and video transcription engine, to document material. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs has developed a proof-of-concept tool to see whether AI can help speed up the processing of claims.
Both countries take a deliberate “light touch” and principles-based regulatory approach to AI. But this approach risks overlooking the growing environmental cost of AI that can’t be solved by improving it.
The natural environment is foundational to the economy, culture and wellbeing. It should be at the centre of our thinking. It’s time to rethink the AI innovation playbook and shift focus toward a sustainable tech future.![]()
Amanda Turnbull-McRae, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Batteries That Use Sodium Instead of Lithium Could Be Low-Cost Rival to Tesla’s
Sodium-ion batteries providing large-scale energy storage in China – CREDIT: Datang power company / HiNa BatteryFrench Open: Sabalenka beats Osaka to reach 14th consecutive major QF
Samsung Strikes Deal with Workers for Profit Sharing in Company's Trillion Dollar Slice of the AI Pie
Samsung Electronics Executive Vice President Yeo Myung-gu, left, and Samsung Electronics labor unions leader Choi Seung-ho sign a wage agreement – credit, Samsung, releasedTelstra and Ericsson team up to target 6G

Data centre to be built near planned Polish nuclear power plant
Visualisation of the Baltic Data Centre Campus in Choczewo (Image: WBS Power)Birth rates are declining in most of the world, including Australia. Here’s why that really matters
Liz Allen, Australian National University
Birth rates have been declining worldwide since the peak of the post-second world war baby boom. Birth rates have now reached below replacement in most of the world, including Australia. Put simply, populations on average aren’t replacing themselves.
Everyone from Elon Musk to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, to the pope have opinions on declining total fertility (or birth) rates – the average number of births per woman.
Overpopulation has dominated popular discourse since the 1960s. While fears of overpopulation remain, especially tied to immigration, concerns have shifted to depopulation and the related economic and national security issues.
Overpopulation fears to depopulation woes
In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich warned the 1970s would bring “people, people, people, people” and an overpopulation “cancer” resulting in famine and war. Human extinction was imminent, we were warned.
Overpopulation-associated human extinction has not come to be.
The global total fertility rate has more than halved since 1950. Average birth rates for OECD countries now sit at 1.46 births per woman, well below the 2.1 required for generational replacement.
World population decline is projected by the mid-2080s. China is now in its fourth year of population decline. South Korea has been declining since 2019 with its near-global record low birth rates. Germany has seen deaths outnumber births since 1972. Japan, Greece, Italy, Cuba and Thailand are also among those in the depopulation club.
Without immigration, the United Kingdom would also see population decline, with deaths outnumbering births. Australia is about a generation away from the same fate. Immigration controls have seen depopulation in Canada.
Birth rates a solution to the ageing ‘problem’
Enormous advancements since the 1950s, mostly in health and medical technologies like immunisation, mean humans are living longer. We’re also having fewer children, and as a result populations are ageing.
An ageing population is a mark of success and human ingenuity, but economic systems tend to view ageing societies as problematic.
Workers and working-aged people are essential to maintain a healthy economy. Individual income taxpayers are the top source of federal government revenue in Australia. Too few people of working age replacing those retiring can seriously undermine economic wellbeing, forcing governments to do more service provision with less financial resources.
Below-replacement fertility and its implications for government bottom lines have resulted in Australian politicians calling on Australians to have more babies. “Have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country”, treasurer Peter Costello famously said in 2004.
In 2020, former prime minister Tony Abbott suggested the wrong kind of women were having children, calling on “middle class” women to have more. Talking the budget, treasurer Jim Chalmers in 2024 said it would be “better if birth rates were higher”.
Human catastrophe of low birth rates
People are increasingly saying the choice to have children is constrained by external factors. Worldwide, around one-in-five surveyed by the United Nations said fears about the future would or has resulted in them having fewer children than they wanted.
Housing affordability, economic stability, gender inequality and climate change present insurmountable barriers for having a much-wanted family.
The lack of choice to have children in below-replacement regions, I’d argue is indeed a human catastrophe. How is it that we’ve allowed society to become so hostile that children are out of the question for so many who want them?
The intergenerational bargain is well and truly corrupted.
We are confronted with the tough question of who will care for us with the children gone.
Can a human catastrophe be avoided?
The burden of having a family falls on working-aged people, especially women.
A baby bonus or one-off payment is unlikely to change people’s minds and increase the total fertility rate; such payments merely change timing. Instead, increasing total fertility rates requires a comprehensive suite of measures from a policy perspective.
Tackling the big four big domains of housing, the economy, gender and climate encompass issues such as
- secure, affordable and appropriate housing
- employment and income security
- accessible childcare
- social and workplace gender equality
- climate change action.
People of childbearing age aren’t being hedonistic when making family and fertility decisions. They’re not thinking about themselves, they’re actually thinking about the future world and weighing what that might look like for prospective children.
Loss of hope among people of childbearing age, including fears of being left behind, contribute to overall concerns about an insecure future.
Not only is the human catastrophe of low births rates reflecting more widespread concerns, such as insecurity, it could also be undermining social cohesion.
Rather than an exploding bomb of overpopulation, the world faces an economic and social implosion due to lacking substantive supports necessary to help raise much-wanted children.
Surely it’s beyond time we ask people what they actually need – and give it to them.![]()
Liz Allen, Demographer, POLIS Centre for Social Policy Research, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
One street tree can boost Sydney house prices by $30,000 – or cost $70,000 if it’s too close: new study
A single street tree can potentially increase an average Sydney house price by A$30,000, our new research shows. This echoes past research showing street trees not only help boost property prices, but offer other benefits, from improved scenery and privacy to increased shade.
But there’s a catch. Our analysis, published in the international Cities journal, also found that if a street tree is too close, it can actually reduce the selling price by more than $70,000.
Our study looked at more than 1,500 house sales in the City of Sydney from 2021 to 2024, then matched those with detailed council data on nearly 50,000 public trees.
After accounting for other, better known price factors – number of bedrooms, bathrooms, car parking, land size, proximity to the CBD, transport, schools and more – we found trees can be associated with higher house prices. But that price boost only occurred when the trees were about 10–20 metres from a home, such as across the street or near the frontage.
In contrast, trees planted too close – within a 10m radius from the centre of the property – were actually associated with lower sale prices.
This matters beyond Sydney. Every Australian capital city has set tree-planting goals, such as the City of Sydney’s target for 23% tree canopy cover in 2030 and 27% in 2050. Yet many will struggle to meet them, with some facing resistance from residents. Our research explains why tree placement will be crucial if we ever want to meet those targets.
What’s new about this research
Past studies in Perth, as well as several cities in the United States and Canada, have consistently shown trees tend to increase property values.
But what we didn’t know before now was where the benefits stop and the costs begin.
Our study identifies a clear “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) boundary, of around 10m, within which street trees’ economic value turns negative.
That finding is important, because that’s when resident resistance to street trees is likely to be strongest.
This is a first study of its kind to quantify the economic value of public trees by taking advantage of using individual tree-level data managed by the City of Sydney from 2023.
It allowed us to measure tree effects at the finest possible distance from the centre of property: under 10m, 10–20m, 20–50m, 50–100m, and beyond 100m. This is something previous studies could not do when relying on satellite or street imagery.
How tree location affects price
We controlled for all the usual factors that influence house prices, including property features and location amenities. This meant we could measure the impact of trees after accounting for everything else.
We found that distance matters. In dollar terms, one additional tree within 10m of the centre of a property reduced its value by 2.96%. An average home sold in the City of Sydney from 2021 to 2024 was worth $2,613,000 – so that reduction worked out to be a $70,290 cost.
Given the average lot size of 176m² in the City of Sydney, the distance from the centre of an average property to its boundary is typically about 8m.
But if a tree was located 10-20 metres away, it increased the value by about 1.16%, worth an average of $30,310.
If the tree was further than 20 metres away, we found no price difference.
The new study identified a clear ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) boundary, within which street trees’ can actually hit house prices. Belle Co/Pexels, CC BYThis show a clear proximity effect. Trees being too close to a house are a cost risk; trees at a moderate distance are a valued feature; and trees further away are neutral and just part of the neighbourhood amenity.
Our study used more precise data than ever before to calculate the distance between street trees and the centre of each property.
But future research could take this further by measuring the distance from each tree to the house. It could also incorporate resident surveys to better understand how people perceive and value trees near their homes.
Why trees being too close matters
Street trees like these are much loved – but can have hidden downsides, such as damage from roots or branches. Jo Quinn/Unsplash, CC BYIt makes sense that people may see trees close to home as a financial risk.
Trees can cause structural damage to buildings and infrastructure, increase fire hazards, and safety concerns from falling branches.
Rather than dismissing residents’ concerns as NIMBYism, they should be seen as rational market responses to maintenance risks, structural damage, and amenity loss.
Planting plans need resident support
Every Australian capital city has adopted “urban forest” or tree planting strategies, many of them aiming to hit 30-40% canopy cover in coming decades. For example, the City of Melbourne’s target is 40% canopy cover by 2040, while Brisbane City Council is aiming for 50% shade for residential footpaths and bikeways by 2031.
However, there are doubts about whether many of those targets will be met.
There are good reasons for governments to invest in urban trees, as they can protect us from extreme heat and help as a response to climate change. But resistance from homeowners can undermine these policies.
Our research shows residents are more likely to welcome street trees if they’re planted not too close, and not too far, from their homes.
* Thanks to the coauthors of this paper, Qiulin Ke and Bin Chi from University College London.![]()
Song Shi, Associate Professor, Property Economics, University of Technology Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Airtel and partners pump $1bn into Nxtra data centres

AST SpaceMobile satellite placed into wrong orbit

A new ad campaign is pushing Australians to use less petrol. Has this happened before?
David Lee, UNSW Sydney
A new federal government advertising campaign is prompting Australians to reduce their fuel consumption during the current global oil crisis.
It asks Australians to consider using their car less and offers tips to boost fuel efficiency, such as “driving smoothly” and “unloading excess weight”.
It comes soon after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s whirlwind trip to Singapore, which makes up more than a quarter of Australia’s refined fuel imports, including more than half of our petrol, 22% of jet fuel and 15% of diesel.
However, the launch of the campaign shows the government is concerned to some degree about fuel supplies in Australia.
So, why is this happening, are there historic precedents in Australia and what are other countries doing at the moment?
Why the concerns about fuel supply?
The campaign comes two weeks after national cabinet endorsed a four-stage National Fuel Security Plan – which mentions rationing as a final step – as global fuel supplies continue to fluctuate due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
The Strait of Hormuz is a key factor – it was tentatively re-opened after the two-week ceasefire was agreed to last week. Since then, Iran has blocked ships from passing through the strait after Israel launched a wave of strikes in Lebanon. Then on Monday, US President Donald Trump threatened to block it via the US Navy.
Even before the ceasefire, the Australian government said it had secured supplies into May and that rationing would not be needed.
But it may be necessary if there’s no lasting peace in the Middle East.
How Asian countries are responding
Asian economies are particularly dependent on oil and gas supplies from the Middle East. According to the US Energy Information Administration, 84% of crude oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024 was bound for Asia.
Understandably, several countries have already introduced rationing or other measures:
Myanmar uses an “odd-even” system based on license plates, allowing the purchase of fuel on alternating days
Thailand has encouraged remote work for public servants and asked residents to limit the use of air conditioning
Vietnam has promoted cycling and carpooling
Sri Lanka has implemented a weekly ration system for vehicles using a QR code
Indonesia, South East Asia’s largest economy, has capped daily purchases for private consumers and asked public servants to work from home once a week
The Philippines declared a national emergency and implemented governmental conservation measures.
Countries in Europe and Africa have also implemented rationing but Asian countries have been particularly affected.
Australia’s experience with fuel conservation
Australia has rationed petrol in earlier emergencies.
When the second world war broke out in September 1939, Australia only had enough petrol to last three months of normal consumption.
At first, the wartime government led by Robert Menzies encouraged Australians voluntarily to reduce their petrol consumption and promoted conversion to vehicles powered by gas from coal.
But as the fighting intensified, oil tankers which were on their way to Australia turned around because of the war, and supplies dwindled.
In June 1940, cabinet aimed to reduce consumption by 50%, a goal later reduced to 30%.
Under national security regulations, civilians were issued ration coupons limiting how much fuel a person could purchase. Non-essential driving was restricted. Public transport and essential industries were prioritised and diesel was tightly controlled for military and agricultural operations.
Even in wartime, rationing was unpopular. The issue contributed to Menzies’s near-defeat at the September 1940 election. His government was replaced the following year by a Labor government.
The end of the war did not automatically lead to the end of petrol rationing.
This was because Australia had to use US dollars to purchase most of its petrol, which were in short supply throughout the British Commonwealth. Consequently, the Chifley government continued with rationing to conserve dollars.
In June 1949, the High Court decided rationing was a matter for states – not the Commonwealth.
Australia’s next serious oil crisis came in the 1970s.
In 1973, the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) reduced oil production and suspended deliveries to some western countries.
Like many other countries, Australia experienced “stagflation” – higher unemployment and inflation – for about a decade.
But Australia was shielded from the full reverberations because it reached about 70% sufficiency in oil through the discovery of oil and natural gas in Bass Strait.
Only in 1979, after a second oil price spike and a strike at the Caltex Refinery in Kurnell, New South Wales, was petrol rationing introduced through an “odd-even” number plate method.
Further action on fuel supply
After the 1970s oil crisis, the Hawke government sponsored legislation to allow the Governor-General to declare a formal national liquid fuel emergency.
The Liquid Fuel Emergency Act may be invoked as a last resort when a fuel shortage has national implications.
Under the act, the minister for climate change and energy can direct refineries, importers and distributors to adjust production and manage stocks.
The legislation also allows the government to implement two levels of rationing: retail and bulk.
Retail rationing involves service stations limiting how much individual motorists can buy at a time while also exempting essential users.
Bulk rationing targets large-scale distributors and wholesale customers, such as mining companies and large transport fleets.
A reprieve, for now
Albanese’s National Fuel Security Plan mentions rationing as a final step.
Triggers include shortages threatening the operation of critical infrastructure, stockpiles being dangerously depleted and if the economy is at risk of stalling.
The wobbly ceasefire in the Middle East means Australians have been granted a reprieve. But rationing remains a possibility if hostilities resume.![]()
David Lee, Associate Professor of History, UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Tata Motors hits 10 lakh commercial vehicle milestone at Lucknow plant
How telecom’s most boring data is becoming its most valuable asset

Canva, The Conversation,