Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Argentina's lawmakers have given the green light to a bill championed by President Javier Milei that permits mining in sensitive glacier and permafrost regions. The move has sparked fierce criticism from environmentalists, who argue it jeopardizes vital water sources. The bill, which was already approved by the Senate in February, passed with 137 votes in favor, 111 against, and three abstentions in the Chamber of Deputies after a marathon 12-hour debate. This development is seen as a significant victory for Milei, who has been pushing for looser regulations to attract large-scale mining projects. Environmentalists have expressed deep concerns that the reforms will undermine protections for glaciers and permafrost, which are crucial for water supplies. Thousands of people demonstrated outside parliament, with some protesters clashing with police. Banners displayed slogans such as 'Water is more precious than gold!' and 'A glacier destroyed cannot be restored!' The bill allows for mining of metals like copper, lithium, and silver in the Andes mountains. Argentina is a major producer of lithium, a critical component for the global tech and green energy sectors. The central bank forecasts that mining exports could triple by 2030. Milei, who does not believe in man-made climate change, argues that the bill is necessary for economic growth. 'Environmentalists would rather see us starve than have anything touched,' he has stated. The reform gives provinces more power to decide which areas to protect and which to exploit economically. Environmental activist Flavia Broffoni countered that 'the science is clear' and that creating a 'sustainable mine' in a periglacial environment is not possible. With nearly 17,000 glaciers and rock glaciers in Argentina, concerns over glacial reserves shrinking due to climate change add urgency to the debate.

Argentina's congress has approved a bill promoted by President Javier Milei that authorizes mining in ecologically sensitive areas of glaciers and permafrost, sparking widespread environmental protests. The bill, which was already approved by the senate in February, will make it easier to mine for metals such as copper, lithium, and silver in frozen parts of the Andes mountains.The chamber of deputies approved the amendment with 137 votes in favor, 111 against, and three abstentions after nearly 12 hours of debate. Environmentalists argue that the legislative changes will weaken protections for crucial water sources, with thousands protesting outside parliament, holding banners with slogans such as “Water is more precious than gold!” and “A glacier destroyed cannot be restored!”Seven Greenpeace activists were arrested earlier in the day after scaling a statue outside parliament and unfurling a banner urging lawmakers “not to betray the Argentine people”. The passage of the amendment is a new coup for Milei, who pushed through looser labor laws in February despite repeated street protests.Environmental activists, such as Flavia Broffoni, argue that there is no possibility of creating a 'sustainable mine' in a periglacial environment. Argentina has nearly 17,000 glaciers or rock glaciers, with glacial reserves in the north-west shrinking by 17% in the last decade due to climate change.Milei, a free-market radical who does not believe in human-made climate change, says the bill is necessary to attract large-scale mining projects. The Central Bank of Argentina estimates that the country could triple its mining exports by 2030. Supporters argue that the bill will provide legal certainty and clear definitions, while critics, such as Enrique Viale, warn that it threatens the water supply for 70% of Argentinians.

During Donald Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, Giorgia Meloni was the only European leader invited, underscoring a brief period of close personal and diplomatic ties between Italy’s right‑wing government and the new U.S. administration. A month earlier she had been photographed sharing a private conversation with Trump at the Élysée Palace while President Emmanuel Macron celebrated the reopening of Notre‑Dame. From the outset of Trump’s second term, the Italian premier was hailed by the U.S. president as a “real live wire” and the European ally who could help “straighten out the world.” Meloni embraced the role, describing Trump as a “brilliant man” and promising to "make the West great again" together. That camaraderie has now eroded. In the wake of the US‑Israeli military action against Iran, Meloni told reporters during a Gulf‑region visit that "when we don’t agree, we must say it", explicitly rejecting the war. Her stance was reinforced a week earlier when Italy denied U.S. bombers permission to refuel at a southern base. Political analysts note that Meloni’s shift marks a decisive break from Trump’s agenda. Roberto D’Alimonte, a political‑science professor at Luiss University, warned that her earlier attempt to act as a bridge between Trump and European allies has become a “liability” she now seeks to repair. Public opinion reflects the change. Recent polls show a solid majority of Italians oppose the Iran war, and support for Trump in Italy has plunged from 35 % to just 19 %. The backlash also manifested in a recent referendum on judicial reform, where 61 % of voters aged 18‑34 rejected Meloni’s proposal—a defeat analysts link more to dissatisfaction with her foreign‑policy alignment than to the reform itself. Beyond politics, the conflict threatens Italy’s economy. As the EU’s second‑largest natural‑gas consumer—accounting for roughly 40 % of its energy mix—Italy is feeling the impact of soaring energy prices caused by the near‑total shutdown of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The Bank of Italy now projects only a 0.5 % growth rate for 2026‑27, down from earlier forecasts, while the national statistics office reported that Italy’s fiscal deficit has breached the EU’s 3 % ceiling, limiting fiscal flexibility ahead of next year’s elections. Despite these pressures, Meloni has not completely abandoned the United States. In March she declined Trump’s request to dispatch Italian warships to the Strait of Hormuz, aligning with other European nations, yet she stopped short of condemning the US‑led operation outright. Experts argue that Meloni’s approach is deliberately cautious. “She is pragmatic and politically skilled,” D’Alimonte said. “She will continue to balance criticism of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy with the need to preserve strategic ties, moving step‑by‑step toward a stronger European alignment without burning bridges.”

The temporary cease‑fire in the US‑Israel‑Iran war has given Iran and China a strategic opening to challenge the US dollar’s supremacy in global finance. Both nations share a common objective: to reduce reliance on the greenback, especially in the oil sector where, according to a 2023 JP Morgan estimate, roughly 80% of transactions are settled in dollars. In a practical step toward this goal, Iran’s de‑facto toll‑booth system in the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint that handles about one‑fifth of the world’s oil and LNG shipments—has started accepting transit fees in Chinese yuan. Lloyd’s List reported that at least two vessels had already paid in yuan by March 25, and China’s Ministry of Commerce later acknowledged the reports on social media. Iran’s embassy in Zimbabwe even called for the introduction of a “petroyuan” to the global oil market, underscoring the political symbolism of the move. While Tehran pledged to guarantee safe passage for two weeks under a US‑brokered cease‑fire, Beijing declined to comment. Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff told Al Jazeera that Iran’s actions serve a dual purpose: they “poke a thumb in the United States’s eye” and provide a practical alternative to dollar‑based sanctions. Rogoff added that Iran’s shift to yuan aligns with China’s broader effort to redenominate trade among BRICS nations. For both countries, the yuan offers a way to sidestep US sanctions and lower transaction costs. Their trade relationship, cemented by a 25‑year strategic partnership signed in 2021, sees China buying over 80% of Iran’s oil—often at discounted rates—while Iran imports Chinese machinery, electronics, chemicals, and industrial components. Data from Kpler and TankerTrackers indicate that, despite the conflict, Iran’s oil exports to China have remained near pre‑war levels, ranging between 12 million and 13.7 million barrels in the first two weeks of hostilities. China’s ambition to elevate the yuan is long‑standing. President Xi Jinping, in a 2024 address, expressed hope that the yuan would become a global reserve currency. Yet significant hurdles remain: the yuan is not freely convertible due to strict capital controls, and the Chinese financial system is perceived as opaque, limiting broader adoption. According to the IMF, the dollar still dominated global foreign‑exchange reserves at 57% last year, far ahead of the euro’s 20% and the yuan’s modest 2%. Cross‑border trade settled in yuan rose to 3.7% in 2024, up from under 1% in 2012, per S&P; Global—an encouraging but limited shift. Natixis chief economist Alicia Garcia‑Herrero cautioned that the Strait of Hormuz experiment adds only “incremental pressure” and that a true “de‑dollarisation” would require Gulf states, which have priced oil in dollars since the 1970s in exchange for US security guarantees. European analyst Hosuk Lee‑Makiyama highlighted that China’s ability to supply Iran with essential goods makes the yuan a viable alternative, a dynamic not possible for Europe or Japan. He described China as the closest the world has seen to a “manufacturing one‑stop shop.” Consultancy founder Dan Steinbock echoed that while the dollar’s supremacy is unlikely to crumble overnight, the gradual increase in yuan usage could “chip away” at US dominance in specific sectors over time. Rogoff concluded that the long‑term impact hinges on the war’s outcome. If Iran and China emerge stronger, many countries may diversify away from the dollar to avoid US‑imposed financial constraints. Conversely, a decisive US victory could reinforce dollar hegemony for the foreseeable future.

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”.

Thirty years after the passionate road protests against the Newbury bypass, the elevated road now looms large, a constant reminder of the environmental costs of progress. For the author, who was part of the campaign, the Newbury bypass remains a sore point, even today.On a walk in The Chase, a nature reserve adjacent to the bypass, the author is accompanied by their friend Sarah, a 'cow watcher' for the National Trust. Their mission is to check on the wellbeing of conservation grazers – Shetland cows with upswept horns – which play a crucial role in maintaining biodiversity and plant life.The reserve, once common land with a rich history dating back to 1819, has been a playground for the author and Sarah. They recall devastating sewage spills that killed local wildlife and the great storms of 1987 and 1990 that left trees like 'spilled pencils.'As they wade across a stream to find the cows grazing among wild daffodils and golden saxifrages, memories of their children come flooding back – 'welly walks' with grandparents, watching great spotted woodpecker chicks fledge, and following silver-washed fritillary butterflies.Their walk complete, they meet at a garden centre cafe, where the author, aided by 'brain fog,' mistakenly heads to the pub first. The zigzag patterns of peaty-black mud from Sarah's boots across the polished floor serve as a humorous reminder of their conservation work and shared experiences.

India's nuclear program has reached a significant milestone with its prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) achieving criticality, a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. Located in Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, the 500 megawatt electrical (MWe) reactor is a major leap forward for India's atomic energy ambitions. The PFBR is only the second commercial fast breeder reactor in the world, following Russia's. This advanced reactor design produces more fissile material than it consumes, using a mix of uranium and plutonium as fuel. The reactor's success is a crucial step towards India's goal of significantly increasing its nuclear energy capacity. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the achievement as 'a proud moment for India' and 'a defining step' in advancing the country's nuclear program. The reactor is designed to enable India to extract greater energy from its limited uranium reserves while paving the way for large-scale deployment of thorium-based reactors. India has more than 25 percent of the world's thorium reserves, which are four times larger than uranium reserves globally. The country's three-stage nuclear program aims to utilize thorium as a primary fuel source in the third stage, with the PFBR serving as a critical component in this process. Experts highlight that the PFBR's success could inspire other countries to adopt similar technology, but challenges remain, including high costs and technical complexities. The reactor's electricity generation is expected to be more expensive than alternatives, including solar energy. Despite these challenges, India's achievement marks a significant advancement in nuclear technology and energy security, particularly for a country with growing energy demands and a desire to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

President Donald Trump issued a stark warning that the United States would eradicate Iran’s “civilisation” unless the regime reopens the Strait of Hormuz and complies with his demands. The statement, posted on his Truth Social account less than twelve hours before the self‑imposed deadline, declared that a whole civilisation could die “tonight, never to be brought back again.” Trump set the cutoff for compliance at 8 p.m. Washington time (00:00 GMT) on Tuesday, framing the moment as a decisive point in what he called a long‑standing struggle against Iranian extortion and corruption. For more than two weeks, the president has threatened to strike Iran’s civilian infrastructure—bridges, power stations, roads and other non‑military assets—if his terms are not met. Legal analysts have warned that such actions would constitute a war crime under international law. “It’s horrific. It’s pure evil. It’s disqualifying,” said Yasmine Taeb, legislative and political director of MPower Change Action Fund, condemning the president’s rhetoric as that of “a deranged, unstable madman.” She called for a stronger response from both U.S. lawmakers and the global community. Democratic leaders reacted forcefully. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled Trump “an extremely sick person,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urged Republican colleagues to “put patriotic duty over party and stop the madness,” warning that the conflict could spiral into a world war. Representative Rashida Tlaib suggested invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, citing the recent bombing of a school in Minab that killed over 170 children. Congressional attempts to curb the president’s war powers have stalled; a recent resolution to limit his authority failed to pass, leaving the legal basis for the campaign in question. Critics argue that launching a military operation without congressional approval violates the U.S. Constitution, which reserves the declaration of war to Congress. Republican reactions were muted. Representative Mike Lawler downplayed the threat, stating that any strikes would target only Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure to cripple the regime’s economy, and affirmed that Trump is acting within his constitutional authority as commander‑in‑chief. The conflict, which began on February 28 when the United States and Israel allegedly killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, has already claimed more than 2,000 lives, including civilians in schools, residential blocks and medical facilities. Iran’s retaliatory rocket and drone attacks have hit Israeli and U.S. assets across the Middle East, while Iranian forces have blocked the Strait of Hormuz, driving global energy prices higher. Despite the heavy toll, Iran’s governing structure appears intact, bolstered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. No major defections or anti‑government protests have emerged, and Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has assumed a leading role. Trump, while maintaining a hardline stance, left a narrow window for diplomacy, suggesting that “maybe something revolutionary wonderful can happen.” He framed the deadline as “one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the world,” promising that “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death will finally end.” Vice President J.D. Vance echoed the president’s message, warning Iran that the United States possesses additional, undisclosed tools and will employ them if Tehran does not alter its conduct, emphasizing the U.S. desire for free flow of oil and gas.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are not armed while working in Canada, the agency said in a statement released as the 2026 FIFA World Cup draws near. The clarification comes amid public anxiety that U.S. officers might be deployed at tournament venues in Toronto and Vancouver.According to an ICE spokesperson quoted by CBC, the agency’s personnel collaborate with Canadian law‑enforcement partners on joint investigations into narcotics, weapons smuggling and human trafficking. However, they do not perform operational duties such as executing search warrants or making arrests on Canadian soil.ICE maintains five offices across Canada, including locations in the World Cup host cities of Toronto and Vancouver, which together will host 13 matches. Despite this presence, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree emphasized that ICE has no legal jurisdiction in Canada.Federal law grants U.S. immigration agents the power to arrest and detain individuals suspected of violating U.S. immigration statutes, but those powers do not extend beyond American borders. The distinction is crucial as Toronto’s city council recently passed a motion opposing any deployment of U.S. agents at World Cup venues.The clarification follows earlier protests, such as the February demonstration in Milan where hundreds rallied against ICE’s presence ahead of the Milano‑Cortina Winter Games. Those events underscore the sensitivity surrounding foreign law‑enforcement agencies operating in host nations of major sporting events.By confirming that its agents are unarmed and lack enforcement authority in Canada, ICE aims to allay concerns and preserve the collaborative spirit between the United States and Canada as they prepare for a tournament expected to draw millions of visitors.