Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would send a shock wave around the world, senior climate diplomats warned, saying the move would imperil international climate targets, erode the United Kingdom’s reputation as a climate leader and embolden developing countries to exploit their own fossil‑fuel reserves.The UK government faces intense lobbying from the oil industry, Conservative MPs, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, certain trade unions and factions within the Treasury. Yet research shows that new drilling would do little to lower energy prices and would have almost no impact on gas imports.Two of the remaining large North Sea prospects – the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields – sit in a basin that is over 90% depleted and increasingly costly to develop. Even if fully exploited, they would displace only about 1% and 2% of the UK’s gas imports respectively, according to recent analysis.Senior figures in international climate diplomacy described the prospect of new drilling as dangerous for global emissions‑reduction efforts and a step back from the phase‑out of fossil fuels.Lord Nicolas Stern, professor at the London School of Economics, warned that “new drilling and a slowdown in climate action would be bad for growth and for energy security in the UK, and a damaging signal for the world.” He added that the UK’s pioneering climate legislation and its role as the first G7 nation to commit to net‑zero by 2050 give its actions “extra weight” on the global stage.An anonymous senior African negotiator reacted angrily to the proposal, stating that Africa would “reject any proposal for the UK to expand oil drilling” because it is “fundamentally inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement” and would “weaken trust with climate‑vulnerable nations”.Christiana Figueres, former UN climate chief and co‑founder of the Global Optimism think‑tank, argued that true energy independence lies in “scaling clean, domestic energy, not in extending the life of declining industries”. She cautioned that reverting to old‑fashioned oil expansion would lock in infrastructure at odds with the direction of the global energy system.The UK has been a vocal supporter of an upcoming conference in Colombia on the “transition away from fossil fuels”, a pledge made three years ago at COP28 that remains largely unfulfilled. However, the Guardian learned that Ed Miliband, the UK secretary of state for energy security and net‑zero, will not attend; the government’s climate envoy, Rachel Kyte, will travel in his place.Campaigners had urged Miliband’s presence, citing his pivotal role in securing a last‑minute deal at COP30 in Brazil last November.Experts caution that licensing new fields before the Colombian summit could undermine progress in persuading developing nations to forgo fossil‑fuel‑based economies and adopt cleaner energy pathways.Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa think‑tank, warned that a UK approval would “send a shock wave around the world that short‑term interests are being prioritised over long‑term responsibility”. He stressed that many African countries are being asked to leapfrog to clean energy with limited financial support, and that wealthy nations continuing to invest in fossil fuels “undermine this message and diminish their credibility”.Several developing‑country officials echoed this concern, asking, “Why shouldn’t we tap into our own fossil‑fuel resources if the UK is doing so?” They argued that leadership on climate must be consistent with actions.An ally of Miliband praised the UK’s stance, calling “no new exploration licences” a “landmark global leadership position” that shows a major oil‑producing country can align policy with climate science to avoid a 3‑4°C warming scenario.A government spokesperson reaffirmed the administration’s commitment, stating that the UK has placed “clean energy and climate at the heart of its agenda”, and that it will continue to “stop issuing licences to explore new fields, in line with the science and in securing a just transition in the North Sea”.

US President Donald Trump has intensified his rhetoric against Iran, suggesting that the United States aims to seize the country's oil industry. In a recent social media post, Trump stated that with more time, the US can 'easily open the Hormuz Strait, take the oil, and make a fortune.' This assertion marks a significant escalation in his statements regarding Iran. The strategic Hormuz Strait, a critical waterway for global oil shipments, has been effectively blocked by Iran early in the conflict, leading to a surge in energy prices. Trump's comments come as the US and Israel continue their military campaign against Iran, with the war now entering its sixth week. Under international law, specifically the doctrine of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1962, oil and minerals are considered to belong to the countries where they are located. Trump's repeated calls for 'taking the oil' in countries involved in US military actions, including Iraq and Venezuela, have been controversial. Despite the assassinations of top Iranian officials and daily bombardments by the US and Israel, the Iranian government remains in control of the country's natural resources. The US has no publicly known military presence on the ground in Iran, and Trump did not provide details on how his administration plans to control Iran's oil. Trump's suggestion that replicating the Venezuelan model in Iran is possible but would require prolonging the war has sparked concerns. He expressed a preference for taking Iran's oil but noted that the US public may not have the patience for a prolonged conflict. Legal experts have criticized Trump's threats to bomb civilian infrastructure, including power stations and water desalination plants, as potential war crimes under international law. Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson has likened the US attacks to ISIS tactics, highlighting the devastating impact on civilian populations.

Jeepney driver Arturo Modelo of Manila says his daily earnings have collapsed to roughly one‑third of the usual 600 pesos after fuel costs surged, leaving him unable even to afford his child’s lunch money.Modelo joined a two‑day transport strike on Thursday and Friday, hoping to make a “deaf government” listen to the plight of drivers who can no longer earn a living on the road.The iconic jeepney, born from repurposed U.S. military vehicles after World War II, remains the most affordable commuter option in the Philippines, yet its operators are now bearing the brunt of a global oil shock.Last week, jeepney owners walked out, and this week the protest expanded to include bus, taxi, minibus and motorcycle‑taxi drivers. Nearly a dozen national transport groups marched to the Presidential Palace demanding price caps on petrol and diesel, the removal of fuel taxes, and stricter regulation of the oil sector.Organised under the No to Oil Price Hike Coalition, the demonstrators also blamed “American aggression” against Iran for the domestic economic distress, with union chair Jerome Adonis likening the impact to “a bomb dropped on us”.In response, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr declared a national energy emergency on Tuesday night – the first such declaration in the country’s history. The emergency, set to last one year, grants the government powers to accelerate fuel procurement, curb hoarding and curb profiteering.Fuel prices remain among the highest in Southeast Asia: diesel is now about $2.3 per litre and petrol close to $2 per litre in the Philippines, versus $2.7 and $2.35 respectively in Singapore, while Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand report roughly half those prices.To alleviate the burden, the administration has introduced a 5,000‑peso ($83) subsidy for motorcycle‑taxi drivers and other public‑transport workers, and disbursed 2.5 billion pesos (≈$414 million) in fuel subsidies to roughly 300,000 transport employees. Unions claim the sector employs about two million people, leaving many without aid.During the strike, picket lines appeared at 85 commuter terminals, and jeepneys were scarce on Manila’s usually congested streets. Authorities, however, argued that the action did not cripple the city’s transport network.Union leader Mody Floranda of the Piston group accused President Marcos of favouring oil companies, saying the president could issue an executive order to cap prices but has yet to act decisively.Energy officials note that 98 % of the Philippines’ crude oil is imported and that the country’s high 12 % value‑added tax, excise duties and a deregulated market – shaped by the Oil Industry Deregulation Law of 1998 – amplify price volatility. Professor Krista Yu of De La Salle University highlighted the nation’s limited refining capacity as a structural weakness.Chief economist Emmanuel Leyco warned that the law allowing industry‑driven price adjustments “is the main culprit”, especially as “half the population is poor”.Amid mounting pressure, Marcos signed legislation permitting the temporary suspension of fuel excise taxes when crude oil prices exceed a set threshold. Opposition lawmaker Renee Co urged that the 12 % VAT also be removed, calling both taxes “regressive” burdens on ordinary Filipinos.Co and other lawmakers have also filed a resolution demanding an immediate end to the U.S.‑Israel‑Iran conflict, linking regional geopolitics to the domestic fuel crisis.

An active oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has spread across seven nature reserves, covering an area of more than 600km (373 miles). The spill, which originated from an unidentified vessel and two natural sources, has had devastating effects on local wildlife and ecosystems.Mexican authorities have confirmed that the spill has killed sea turtles, a manatee, and various fish species. Additionally, reports from communities in the area indicate that approximately 17 reefs have been damaged. Oceana, an international organization focused on ocean conservation, highlighted these findings, emphasizing the severity of the environmental impact.The sources of the spill have been identified as a vessel docked off the coast of Coatzacoalcos in Veracruz, a geological site known as a 'chapopotera' 8km from the Coatzacoalcos port, and another natural leak site in the Bay of Campeche. The Navy Secretary, Admiral Raymundo Morales, confirmed that the spill point remains active, with a greater flow of contaminants observed in the last month.Environmental organizations, including Greenpeace Mexico, have denounced the alleged inaction by state authorities, calling for faster communication and mitigation of the damage. The Gulf of Mexico has been treated as a 'sacrifice zone for the oil industry,' according to Greenpeace, which urged the government to design and implement effective protocols to prevent and respond to environmental risks associated with oil activities.At least six species, including sea turtles, birds, and fish, have been contaminated so far. The incident has also raised concerns about the potential impact on oysters in the connected Mecoacan lagoon and the fishermen harvesting them, particularly after an explosion occurred at the Olmeca refinery on March 17, resulting in five fatalities.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a temporary waiver allowing the sale of a higher-ethanol fuel blend, known as E15, in an effort to alleviate soaring gas prices that have been exacerbated by the ongoing Iran war.E15, which contains a higher percentage of ethanol than standard gasoline, has been prohibited during warm weather months due to concerns over its potential to worsen smog. However, the EPA's decision, supported by the US agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, aims to provide relief to consumers at the pump.“President Trump is unleashing American Energy Dominance, and today’s action will directly lower prices at the pump and gives a clear demand signal to our domestic biofuels producers,” Rollins stated.The summer waiver for E15 has become a recurring measure in recent years, with both Republicans and Democrats advocating for its permanent implementation to reduce fuel costs. Currently, E15 is already permitted in several states, including Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, Wisconsin, and most of South Dakota.However, not all experts are convinced that the move will significantly lower gas prices. Kenneth Gillingham, a professor at the Yale School of the Environment, pointed out that E15 is not widely available in all states, and some areas lack the necessary infrastructure or sufficient ethanol supply to support increased use.Gillingham also highlighted potential risks associated with E15, particularly for older vehicles, boats, and all-terrain vehicles, due to its higher corrosive ethanol content. Additionally, increased corn usage for ethanol production could lead to higher costs for animal feed and, subsequently, grocery prices.“I think it’s difficult to see when the ledger’s settled how this is a benefit for US consumers,” said Jason Hill, a professor at the University of Minnesota.The decision has also drawn criticism over its potential environmental impacts, with concerns about increased ozone issues, respiratory problems, and even premature deaths.While the oil industry has generally opposed the expansion of E15, citing costly biofuel blending and potential price increases, the American Petroleum Institute has expressed support for the temporary waiver, emphasizing its role in ensuring affordable and reliable energy for American consumers.

Europe is bracing for a potential energy crisis, with fuel rationing possible as early as April if the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for oil and gas supplies, remains closed. Shell's CEO, Wael Sawan, issued this stark warning at a major oil industry conference in Texas, highlighting the escalating risks to global energy supplies.The crisis, now in its fourth week, has already led to energy rationing in Asian countries and significant price hikes for jet fuel, which has doubled in price since the start of the conflict. Sawan predicts that diesel and petrol will come under pressure next, particularly as the summer driving season begins in the US and Europe.Oil prices have fluctuated, dipping back to about $100 a barrel on Wednesday after reaching highs of around $114 earlier in the week. These developments have raised concerns about the potential for a prolonged global economic recession if oil prices continue to rise, with some predictions suggesting they could hit $150 a barrel.Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, warned of profound implications for the world economy if the conflict continues to drive up oil prices. He outlined two possible scenarios: one where the conflict resolves quickly, allowing oil prices to return to pre-crisis levels of about $70 a barrel, and another where prices remain high for years, potentially leading to a stark and steep recession.Germany's economy minister, Katherina Reiche, also spoke at the conference, cautioning that energy supply scarcity could occur in late April or May if the conflict continues. She criticized Germany's decision to phase out nuclear energy and emphasized the need for greater imports of gas via super-chilled tankers from overseas.

The West's relentless pursuit of oil has been a driving force behind its involvement in the Middle East for over a century. This greed for oil has led to numerous conflicts, coups, and interventions, shaping the region's politics and economies.The 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected government, led by Mohammad Mossadegh, is a prime example. The UK and US orchestrated the coup to prevent Iran from nationalizing its oil industry, which was controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). This event set the stage for decades of repression under the shah's dictatorship and ultimately contributed to the 1979 revolution, which was hijacked by the ayatollahs.The article argues that capitalism and 'free markets' are often misconstrued. The pursuit of profit has led to the plunder of resources, exploitation of labor, and intimidation of communities. The fossil fuel industry, in particular, has extended and empowered capitalist systems, often at the expense of human lives and the environment.The world's military power exists largely to ensure the flow of oil and other resources to banks, shareholders, and commodity traders. This has led to a concentration of power in the hands of a few, undermining democracy and fueling autocratic regimes.To address these issues, the article calls for a reduction in oil dependency and a transition to greener, cleaner energy sources. This would help to defuel dictatorships, war machines, and climate breakdown. The author argues that an emergency program to phase out fossil fuels is necessary, with the same urgency and mobilization as wartime efforts.