Toma nota.../Take note...

There are at least three ways to evaluate the economic viability of energy projects. The easiest way is to just repeat whatever is in a press release. The other extreme, a mandatory exercise for anyone poised to actually invest and build a project, is to develop complex projections that take into account the benefits of tax credits, favorable depreciation treatment, other deductions and subsidies, revenue enhancements, grants — every conceivable variable that affects long-term after-tax cash flow.

There’s another method, however, that may get closer to the heart of the matter. What do the actual physical assets cost to build, and how much does it cost to operate them? After all, if subsidies and tax breaks improve a private return on investment, those costs were socialized, and the economy at-large still covers the full cost. But what if the subsidies and tax breaks are reduced or even eliminated?

This reality is playing out right now in Morro Bay, where two of the three offshore wind developers have terminated their leases. Could it be that the decision to withdraw was because, absent massive public sector incentives, the projects could not make a profit?

A few months ago I took a look at the cost for floating offshore wind, basing the analysis purely on actual construction costs as documented by official sources. Here is an updated summary – the numbers haven’t changed much:

This event is being organized in Gaborone, Botswana, between 7 and 10 October 2026 to explore indigenous, resilient and empowering methods of direct democracy.

Cologne, July 13 (DPnet).— Together with local and international partners, participants from all over the world will meet at the University of Botswana, a truly democratic institution founded through the collective contributions of citizens —including cows, goats, chickens, and all— and explore how Botswana’s unique political landscape opens new perspectives for democracy worldwide.

On October 2026, the meetings of  will take place in Gaborone the world’s largest gathering on participatory and direct democracy, at the facilities of the University of Botswana.

Artificial intelligence has moved from the realm of technological promise to the center of a global political, economic, and ethical debate. What was once seen as a neutral tool to improve efficiency and innovation is now raising fundamental questions about power, governance, security, and even the future of human freedom.

This article explores the growing concern among scientists, policymakers, and economists about the rapid evolution of AI systems and their increasing autonomy. Far from being a sophisticated search engine, modern AI is capable of learning, adapting, and pursuing objectives in ways that are not always aligned with human interests. Recent laboratory evidence suggests that these systems can deceive, manipulate, and prioritize self-preservation, challenging the assumption that humans remain fully in control.

Beyond the technological risks, the article examines how AI is reshaping global power structures. Large technology companies have emerged as strategic actors alongside states and financial institutions, influencing public policy, national security, and geopolitical balance. The race between the United States and China to dominate artificial intelligence development further complicates efforts to establish global safety standards, while open-source models and commercial incentives accelerate the pace of innovation at the expense of security.

The analysis also delves into regulatory responses, particularly in Europe, where the AI Act represents the first comprehensive attempt to govern artificial intelligence based on risk. Yet the article argues that software regulation alone is insufficient. True control, it suggests, may only be possible through hardware oversight: data centers, energy consumption, advanced chips, and enforceable kill-switch mechanisms.

The Best Way to Eliminate Methane Leaks is to Drill

California’s oil industry has been active for well over a century, and Los Angeles was always at the heart of it. By 1894, about 80 wells were already producing oil in the city, setting off a boom that peaked in the 1970s at nearly 100 million barrels per year. Today oil production in Los Angeles County is barely one-tenth of that, and conventional wisdom holds the cause to be reservoir depletion.

That may be part of the reason for the decline, but according to a 2013 assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey, “between 1.4 and 5.6 billion barrels of additional oil could be recovered” from just the ten major oil fields of the Los Angeles Basin. Even on the low end of that range, that’s a lot of oil, and there could be much more. The Los Angeles Basin has one of the highest concentrations of crude oil in the world.

The other reason for the production decline is regulatory. State and local laws and ordinances have systematically reduced oil production throughout California. Nowhere is this more evident than in Los Angeles County, where emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds are allegedly linked to production of oil and gas. Stop the production, stop the pollution.

But not so fast. As a study released on June 17 concludes, the exact opposite may be more accurate.

More than 60 students from Circle U. universities took part in the “Learning Effective Approaches in Development” course, including three students and two lecturers from the University of Pisa.

Oslo, June 20.– More than 60 students from Circle U. partner universities took part in the initiative, engaging in a week of lectures, discussions and group work focused on development, democracy, sustainability and inclusion. The aim was to analyse, from an interdisciplinary perspective, policies and practices capable of improving the wellbeing of vulnerable communities and promoting equitable and sustainable development.