Energy Ministry says Israel must act now to ensure place in global nuclear fusion race


The European Parliament on Thursday (22 October) backed a three-year delay to the EU’s methane rules for oil and gas importers, two years more than the European Commission proposed last week.
MEPs also voted to extend the delay to European oil and gas producers, which goes beyond the commission’s plans.
The text now forms parliament’s position for negotiations with member states, whose ambassadors failed to agree on Wednesday.
Under the amendments, tabled by the conservative European People’s Party (EPP), importers would only have to prove that their oil and gas meets EU monitoring standards from 2031, instead of 2027 under the current law.
Reporting on methane intensity would also be delayed from 2028 to 2031.
A separate amendment from a cross-party group of 36 Romanian and Bulgarian MEPs, which also passed, delays reporting obligations for EU operators by three years, to 2030.
MEPs also approved an amendment, tabled by Dutch Socialist MEP Mohammed Chahim, that the extra time should not apply to oil, gas and coal from countries under EU sanctions, which in practice means Russia.
A far-right Patriots for Europe proposal to suspend the regulation altogether was rejected, as was a push by the conservative ECR group to delay parts of the rules even longer.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Four graphs that tell a bigger story
By Ian PROUD
Join us on Telegram
, X
, and VK
.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
I have wanted to write an article for sometime about the differing fates of Russia and Ukraine since the onset of the conflict in 2014. The headline is that Ukraine has never made up the difference in increased trade with Europe having cut its trade with Russia to the bone since 2014. This has inadvertently meant that Europe has had to inject significant sums of capital into Ukraine just to prevent its currency from collapsing as the war has gone on. Russia has diversified its trade away from Europe such that its export model is as strong today as it was in 2014, giving it the liquidity it needs to underwrite the war effort.
Key finding:
Detailed analysis
Russia’s export model in which it runs consistently large trade surpluses has ensured it can generate the reserves of foreign currency and gold which have undoubtedly helped to bankroll the war in Ukraine. Ukraine’s trade deficit has yawned since the war started, requiring continual injections of European capital to prevent its currency from collapsing.
This helps to explain by Russia can sustain the war for longer; it doesn’t need to take on significant new debt, its debt remaining low at 20%. Ukraine can only fund the war and keep its national accounts in balance with European money that cannot be guaranteed long-term and which, in any case, has increased Ukrainian debt by an average of 20% of GDP each year since the war started. This is not sustainable.
The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement of 2014 has disadvantaged Ukraine because it forced a choice away from trading with Russia.
The starting point for this is the signature by Ukraine of a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Europe on 27 June 2014.
Herman van Rompuy, then President of the European Council said that “stronger political and economic ties will bring greater stability and prosperity to the entire European continent.”
President Poroshenko said “over the last months, Ukraine paid the highest possible price to make her European dreams come true.”
Yet, the true price of this agreement has borne by Ukraine which saw its exports collapse and its imports increase, as it make a “sovereign choice” not to maintain trade links with Russia.
That was a catastrophically bad choice. Russia had accounted for around 25% of Ukrainian exports prior to 2014 and that figure fell to less than 5% in 2021 before the war started. Ukraine did not make up that gap by increasing the volume of exports to Europe, which have remained largely unchanged.
Indeed, this same pattern can be seen in Georgia which has also seen no real increase in exports to the EU after it signed the DCFTA. The EU uses a number of trade dispute mechanism and other non-tariff barriers to put blockages in the way of import growth from DCFTA partner countries.
So, by encouraging Ukraine to trade with Europe and not with Russia, Europe has imposed a deadweight economic loss on Ukraine which took a sovereign decision to forgo a previously profitable trade relationship, to pursue a political goal of EU integration.
Moreover, since the war started, imports into Ukraine have surged leading to a progressive ballooning of its trade deficit. This surge in imports has been caused by Ukraine purchasing weapons from the US using borrowed European and domestic funds. So, Ukraine is borrowing money to create a trade deficit that needs to be filled with further inflows of capital.

Dragged into a persistent and growth trade deficit by war, Ukraine needs continued injections of foreign funds to prevent its currency collapsing.
The graph below maps the growth in Ukraine’s trade deficit with the corresponding growth in receipts classified as Secondary Income within its quarterly balance of payments. These inflows of capital as Secondary Income are injections from Europe (principally) that are vital to shore up Ukraine’s FX reserves and so prevent a run on the currency. The key point is that foreign funding to Ukraine is more than just a fiscal event and top it. It is a vital support mechanism in circumstances where Ukraine is unable to attract sufficient inflows of foreign investment during a time of war.

Russia simply hasn’t faced the same challenge, choosing instead to diversify its exports to other countries as Europe progressively shut down trade. Sanctions haven’t dented trade.
The graph below illustrates in an elegant way how Russia’s trade has changed and evolved since. Russia’s exports have gone through peaks and troughs since 2014, although the troughs have often been caused by global events such as the 2014 and 2016 oil price collapses and COVID,
The onset of the war in Ukraine caused a huge windfall in income from exports as oil prices surged. Despite the imposition of thousands of sanctions by western nations after the war commenced, Russia’s exports have remained highly resilient. This is down to Russia’s diversification of its exports towards countries in Asia.
In short, despite many headlines in western mainstream media of sanctions ‘denting Russia’s war economy’ there is no substantive evidence that this has been the case.
Russia’s export model continues to be an engine room that provides the liquidity it needs to fund the war without taking on significant new debt. This gives it a significant advantage over Ukraine and its European backers in the ‘war of attrition’.

Russia has accumulated reserves since the war started to make up for the immobilisation of $300bn in FX by western nations. Russia now invests in monetary gold to sanction-proof its assets.
Finally, I have been commenting for some time that Russia started the process of accumulating Foreign Exchange Reserves in 2017 as it shifted its monetary policy to embrace a weak rouble to maximise rouble income from exports and as it undertook a number of dollar purchases via the Finance Ministry. You can see this reserve accumulation in the graph below.
After the war started, following the large windfall in earning from exports in 2022 and still solid trade figures after that, Russia continued to accumulate reserves. However, following the freezing of its foreign currency assets, it has chosen instead to store its reserves in monetary gold, to sanction proof them.
While Russia would undoubtedly like to see the return of its immobilised assets after the war ends (big question mark) it has nevertheless built up a significant financial buffer to the tune of over $420bn in reserve assets in addition to those assets that remain frozen.
This deep well of reserves undoubtedly helps to underwrite Russia’s war effort without the need for significant borrowing. Russia’s debt today sits at around 20% of GDP.
In 2021 Ukraine’s debt sat at around 49% of GDP. Today it sits at around 110% of GDP.
![]()
Original article: thepeacemonger.substack.com
New projections by the Snowy Hydro company show tunnelling work is now 65% finished, but the completion date has been pushed back to 2029
Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast
The cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0 has blown out to as much as $25bn, with a major reassessment finding the long-delayed renewable energy project will not be completed until the end of the decade.
First touted by the Turnbull government in 2017 with a price tag of $2bn, the cost of the project in the Kosciuszko national park has increased dramatically over time. In 2023 it was revised to almost $13bn, with construction due to completed by the end of 2028.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Snowy Hydro

© Photograph: Snowy Hydro

© Photograph: Snowy Hydro


European Union leaders have correctly identified high energy prices as a threat to households, industry and the wider economy, but their proposed response remains inadequate, energy systems expert Andreas Poullikkas has warned.
Writing after the EU summit held on October 15-16, the former Cyprus Energy Regulatory Authority (CERA) chairman and vice-rector of Frederick University argued that Europe needed structural investment in electricity networks, interconnections and energy storage rather than continued reliance on temporary support measures.
“The diagnosis is correct, but the treatment remains largely inadequate,” Poullikkas said, assessing the summit’s conclusions.
EU leaders called for a coordinated response based on targeted and temporary measures, welcoming delays to certain obligations under the methane regulation and the proposed extension of the temporary state aid framework for the industrial sectors most exposed to high energy costs.
They also supported voluntary pooling of energy demand by businesses and industries, allowing larger combined purchasing volumes to strengthen negotiating power and potentially secure lower, more stable prices.
On the EU emissions trading system (ETS), leaders called for faster legislative work on the Market Stability Reserve to limit excessive volatility and for an updated assessment of the impact of the ETS2 system.
Poullikkas welcomed the recognition that the energy transition could help address both energy security and affordability, describing it as the most positive aspect of the summit’s conclusions.
“The energy transition, with faster electrification, more renewables and other low-emission sources, stronger grids, storage and energy efficiency, is the most effective strategy for structurally lower prices,” he said.
However, he warned that the volatility of carbon allowance prices was already affecting energy costs rather than representing a theoretical concern.
Carbon allowances approached €88 per tonne in early October 2026 and remained above €85 in the middle of the month, according to his analysis.
“When fossil fuel power plants set the electricity market price, every increase or decrease in the price of emissions allowances is transferred directly to the consumer’s bill,” Poullikkas said.
He argued that the EU needed a clear and predictable intervention mechanism to ensure carbon pricing continued to encourage investment without becoming an additional source of uncertainty.
The first weakness in the summit’s approach, he said, was that temporary measures could ease immediate pressure without changing the underlying cost structure.
“If state aid is not linked to investment in renewables, storage and energy savings, it risks entrenching the dependence it is supposed to reduce,” Poullikkas warned.
He also questioned the consistency of the EU’s approach to regulatory certainty, with leaders calling for a transparent and predictable carbon market while simultaneously welcoming delays to certain methane obligations.
“Investors and importers need stable rules, not continuous revisions,” he said.
In his assessment, every postponement risked reinforcing the impression that regulatory requirements could be changed under pressure.
Poullikkas identified infrastructure as the third and most serious weakness, noting that the package of measures for European electricity grids was among the files expected to be completed by the end of the year.
However, the summit conclusions did not set quantitative targets, specify funding or establish an implementation timetable for the necessary infrastructure.
“Interconnections and storage are not a luxury,” he said, describing them as essential infrastructure for security of supply and price stability.
Although EU leaders explicitly recognised the role of cross-border electricity interconnections in supporting Ukraine, Poullikkas argued that the conclusions did not provide equivalent attention to the bloc’s own island and isolated energy systems.
The protection of vulnerable consumers represented another gap, particularly in relation to ETS2, the emissions trading system intended to cover additional sectors.
Under the mechanism, additional allowances can be released from the Market Stability Reserve if the average auction price exceeds €45 per tonne in 2020 prices, adjusted for inflation, for two consecutive months.
“This is a mechanism for easing price pressures, not an absolute price cap,” Poullikkas said.
While he considered the direction appropriate, he argued that household protection needed to be explicit and adequately funded to prevent climate policy from becoming a social burden.
He called for a more substantial European intervention built around binding targets and EU funding for electricity grids and interconnections, with specific provision for island and isolated energy systems.
Clear targets and market mechanisms for energy storage were also needed to absorb more renewable electricity and reduce reliance on expensive peak-generation plants.
At the same time, Poullikkas argued that Europe needed a genuinely competitive electricity market with transparent price signals that encouraged investment and prevented market distortions.
He proposed introducing a price shock absorber to limit the temporary pass-through of extreme fossil fuel price fluctuations into wholesale electricity prices.
“During periods of extreme fluctuations in fossil fuel prices, their transmission to the wholesale electricity market should be temporarily limited, protecting consumers and businesses without undermining the functioning of the market,” he said.
Temporary support measures should also be tied to investment commitments and clear expiry dates, he added, so they acted as a bridge towards a different energy system rather than becoming permanent exceptions.
Poullikkas also highlighted the strategic importance of the Eastern Mediterranean, arguing that the region could become an energy corridor to Europe and strengthen security of supply.
Concerns expressed by EU leaders over the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, as well as the possibility of prolonged disruption to international energy supply chains, made the need for regional energy cooperation more urgent, he said.
“The EU will not solve the cost of energy through successive emergency interventions,” Poullikkas warned.
“Grids, storage, interconnections and a stable carbon market are needed,” he added.
Unless the summit’s diagnosis is translated into binding targets, specific timetables and sufficient funding, Europe risks returning to the same emergency measures every winter, he concluded.




China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment said on Wednesday that it will send a delegation to the COP31 climate conference in Antalya, Turkey, in November to “actively promote the international climate negotiations.”
The post World’s Worst Polluter, China, Vows Strong Presence at U.N. Climate Alarmism Summit appeared first on Breitbart.
Gli errori compiuti negli ultimi decenni dal Partito Comunista di Cuba e il criminale e pluridecennale embargo statunitense, rinvigorito e rafforzato negli ultimi mesi da Marco Rubio a nome dell’amministrazione statunitense stanno portando Cuba verso la catastrofe sociale e umanitaria.
Oggi Cuba è intanto un’isola spopolata. Di dodici milioni di cubani, almeno un milione e mezzo se ne erano già andati prima del 2020 e due milioni e mezzo hanno abbandonato l’isola tra il 2021 e il 2026, massimamente attraverso il Nicaragua, nazione che dalla primavera del corrente anno ha interrotto l’accesso senza visto per i cubani. Oggi nell’isola son dunque rimaste solo otto milioni di persone.
Ad andarsene sono stati principalmente i giovani, tra i venti e quarant’anni, per altro altamente qualificati in ragione dell’istruzione gratuita, possibile fino all’università grazie al socialismo. Una dipartita che compromette di fatto il futuro dell’isola a prescindere dagli sviluppi futuri, avendo questa situazione determinato la perdita di almeno una generazione. I più maligni oppositori dicono che questi giovani “abbiano votato con i piedi”, ovvero abbiano espresso la loro lontananza dal sistema socialista andandosene, certamente la drammatica aggressione economica statunitense ha avuto negli anni un peso rilevante nel convincerli a cercare altrove maggior fortuna.
Tuttavia oggi a Cuba i problemi si moltiplicano, anche perché le rimesse da parte dei parenti all’estero sono azzerate o quasi. Soprattutto perché in molti casi hanno smesso di arrivare, bloccate dal terrorismo bancario esercitato con brutale coercizione dal Tesoro statunitense contro tutte le banche di qualsiasi nazione, per cercare di strangolare più ancora che l’economia dell’isola già al collasso, i cubani stessi, secondariamente perché se non si hanno cinquanta dollari per comprarsi una gallina, si devono spendere tre dollari per acquistare un uovo. Con uno stipendio medio di dodici dollari un medico o un professore dovrebbe vivere con un uovo a settimana e nulla più, una pensionata o un pensionato con tre uova al mese. Lo storico sistema della “livreta”, che garantiva almeno riso e fagioli neri per tutti, è totalmente collassato e le mense per i bisognosi recentemente istituite dal governo sopperiscono al dramma alimentare solo parzialmente e nelle situazioni più estreme, in particolare per gli anziani indigenti.
Di più, nell’isola non c’è mai stata povertà. Probabilmente una vita a volte difficile, ma sempre dignitosa. Oggi non è più così, la stretta economica ha imposto una violenta povertà che si sta trasformando in miseria, la quale a sua volta porta alla creazione informale di bande, principalmente di disperati, dedite al saccheggio, per la prima volta dal 1959, inizio della Rivoluzione, Cuba sta diventando un luogo incapace di garantire quella sicurezza che è sempre stata un vanto, una certezza e un orgoglio per i cubani.
La stretta sul petrolio e sul carburante ha conseguenze devastanti. Da gennaio il blocco marittimo statunitense intorno all’isola e la fine del sostegno petrolifero venezuelano hanno assestato un colpo distruttivo e incalcolabile, il cui danno, prima ancora che economico, è umanitario.
Non solo è del tutto impossibile la raccolta dell’immondizia, venendo ora bruciata a sera negli angoli delle strade, dopo che alcuni anziani vi hanno rovistato alla ricerca di un poco probabile companatico, ma neppure i vigili del fuoco o le forze dell’ordine hanno più benzina, meno che mai i trattori in campagna, le macchine estrattive nel settore minerario, le ambulanze nelle città. Si va in ospedale con il carretto trainato dal cavallo, ammesso che ci sia il cavallo, se si sta in campagna solo il medico locale può intervenire, ovviamente come può e con gli strumenti che ha.
Peggiore la situazione negli ospedali, la mancanza di medicine, l’assenza di elettricità, visto che le centrali elettriche regionali a diesel oggi sono tutte e del tutto ferme, la mancanza di carburante per i generatori di emergenza interni alle strutture sanitarie, hanno spento le sale operatorie e non solo, con il tramonto tutti i reparti non possono che passare nella modalità del riposo in attesa dell’alba successiva. Si opera come prima dell’avvento dell’elettricità agli albori del Novecento, con la volontà, l’intelligenza medico – scientifica e l’abnegazione del personale medico e sanitario cubano, che è e resta tra i più preparati e generosi del mondo, come migliaia di missioni di solidarietà in ogni angolo della terra hanno sempre dimostrato. Tuttavia questo non impedisce che persone di tutte le età, dai bambini agli anziani, muoiano per assenza di cure e di medicamenti.
Si moltiplicano le notizie di personale medico e infermieristico il quale, straziato da questa silenziosa carneficina imposta dal violento ed estremo embargo di questi ultimi mesi, decide di abbandonare il lavoro tra le lacrime per una comprensibile crisi psicologica ed emotiva dovuta all’impotenza e all’impossibilità di assolvere al lavoro sanitario. Un dramma nel dramma, del tutto comprensibile, ma non meno straziante.
I blocchi contro le compagnie aeree, l’assenza di cherosene per ripartire una volta atterrati all’Avana, la possibilità incerta di trovare forse un ciclo – taxi per raggiungere il centro della capitale, pagandolo non meno di cinquanta dollari, che è diventato il prezzo al mercato nero di un litro di benzina per le automobili, di fatto del tutto scomparse dalle strade, più ancora che negli anni del “Periodo especial” negli anni ‘90 del XX secolo, quando almeno ambulanze, automobili della polizia, camion della raccolta dei rifiuti ancora circolavano, hanno azzerato il turismo, stroncando tutte le sue ricadute economiche, a partire dal rum e dai sigari, portando alla definitiva cancellazione di Cuba dalle mete dei viaggi organizzati, prima provenienti da ogni parte del globo terracqueo.
Le campagne, già di loro poco produttive, finiti i fertilizzanti e i pesticidi, fermi i trattori, sono del tutto incapaci di soddisfare il fabbisogno alimentare della popolazione. L’autosufficienza e i tre raccolti annui, mirabilmente e mirabolantemente promessi dagli infuocati discorsi di Fidel Castro nei primi anni della Rivoluzione non solo non si sono mai realizzati, ma con la fine dell’Unione Sovietica e l’apertura al turismo, con l’opportunità in quel tempo di reperire alimentari a prezzi contenuti sul mercato globale e globalizzato, hanno portato allora a non valutare a pieno la necessità di implementare, modernizzare, rafforzare il settore primario, che resta sempre e comunque decisivo per ogni nazione. La produzione è del tutto deficitaria, da qualche mese affidata alla buona volontà di chi lavora la terra, sostenendosi adesso con un vecchio aratro di legno e un mulo o un asino, quando va bene e se c’è, a tirarlo.
Gli zuccherifici sono fermi, così si è tornati a raccogliere la canna da zucchero con il machete e la molitura si realizza con i macchinari se si trova un po’ di benzina e soprattutto i pezzi di ricambio di fatto irreperibili, un’altra disgrazia che comporta continui guasti, all’occorrenza si provvede con i muli che girano le antiche macine di pietra, se son rimaste nei cortili delle aziende. Come se non bastasse il criminale embargo, ecco che i disastri naturali hanno dato il loro nefasto contributo al disfacimento dell’agricoltura cubana, i violenti uragani che hanno devastato l’isola in questi ultimi anni hanno colpito decine di migliaia di ettari di colture, massimamente di canna da zucchero, uccidendo anche decine di migliaia di animali da allevamento. Metà degli zuccherifici per cronica obsolescenza sono stati chiusi con l’avvento del nuovo secolo, molti contadini e operai del settore, qualificati e specializzati grazie all’eccellenza dell’istruzione agraria cubana, hanno abbandonato l’isola trovando facilmente lavoro in tutte le nazioni ispanofone del continente americano.
Il devastante disastro di tutta questa situazione ha di fatto compromesso totalmente la produzione zuccheriera. Nell’anno 1989, l’ultimo del campo socialista e del COMECON, i cubani hanno prodotto otto milioni di tonnellate di zucchero grezzo, mai raggiunte prima e mai più eguagliate dopo quella data, anche perché allora gli zuccherifici funzionanti erano oltre un centinaio e oggi una decina. Ancora nel 2019, anno pre – covid, la produzione ha toccato un milione di tonnellate. Nel 2025, a fronte di una programmazione statale di un quarto di milione di tonnellate, l’isola è riuscita a raccogliere e produrre solo 150mila tonnellate di zucchero, il dato più basso dell’ultimo secolo e mezzo, ovvero a partire dal 1875. Per l’anno in corso 2026 sono difficili le stime, ma vi è la certezza di un evidente calo, con il rischio di un clamoroso e drammatico dimezzamento della produzione del 2025.
Tutta l’attività estrattiva è quasi ferma, se si può forse ancora arare un campo con un zappa, diventa difficile nel 2026 immaginare di scendere in miniera con un piccone. I macchinari di perforazione, estrazione e trasporto in superficie senza carburante restano all’aria aperta a prendere ruggine.
Le ricchezze minerarie non sono poche: nichel in provincia di Holguín, cobalto con riserve tra le più rilevanti a livello globale, cromo nella provincia di Camagüey e destinato all’industria metallurgica e alla produzione di acciaio inossidabile anch’esse del tutto bloccate mancando l’energia per far funzionare le fabbriche, zinco e piombo destinati a una implementazione estrattiva mai avvenuta per gli evidenti motivi di embargo e scarsità di manodopera, che anche in questo caso spesso ha lasciato l’isola.
A fronte di tutto questo l’attaccamento del popolo cubano alle sue istituzioni è ammirevole, al pari dell’amicizia e della solidarietà di nazioni come la Russia e la Cina, quest’ultima capace in questi difficili circostanze di intraprendere una fenomenale campagna di implementazione della capacità di raccolta dell’energia solare attraverso i pannelli fotovoltaici.
Tuttavia la situazione è drammatica e resta difficile elucubrare ipotesi politiche per il futuro, rendendo possibile paventare scenari di ogni sorta.
Resta la tragedia di un un popolo incolpevole, martirizzato dall’imperialismo statunitense per evidente e irriducibile odio politico.
The eurozone economy has proved more resilient to the energy price shock of 2026 than economists initially expected, supported by increased investment in artificial intelligence, reduced dependence on fossil fuels and higher government expenditure, according to an assessment published by the European Central Bank on Wednesday, 21 October.
ECB economists Óscar Arce, Gerrit Koester and Beatrice Pierluigi found that structural changes in European energy consumption have reduced the economic consequences of rising oil and gas prices. Stronger international demand for technology equipment and additional public spending, particularly in Germany, have also supported growth.
The findings come as the ECB faces renewed inflationary pressure following disruption to global energy markets caused by the conflict involving Iran, raising questions about the outlook for interest rates and economic activity.
In their assessment of the eurozone’s economic resilience, ECB economists reported that economic output continued to expand despite the sharp increase in energy prices earlier this year.
Excluding Ireland, where economic statistics are frequently affected by the activities of multinational companies, real eurozone GDP in the second quarter was 0.6 per cent above its level at the end of 2025.
The ECB also identified quarterly growth of approximately 0.3 per cent over the preceding four quarters, excluding Irish figures.
These results exceeded earlier expectations that the disruption to energy markets would have a greater impact on European manufacturing, consumer spending and business investment.
Nevertheless, the eurozone’s rate of expansion remains modest compared with its longer-term historical performance.
The ECB’s findings suggest that the economy has become better able to absorb international disruptions without experiencing the immediate contractions that might previously have followed comparable energy price increases.
One of the most significant structural changes concerns energy consumption.
According to the ECB, the eurozone economy is now approximately half as dependent on oil as it was during the early 1990s, measured against economic output.
Greater energy efficiency, the expansion of services and investment in alternative electricity generation have progressively reduced the amount of fossil fuel required to produce economic activity.
The growth of renewable energy has also altered the relationship between natural gas prices and electricity costs.
In Spain, the proportion of hours during which gas-fired power stations determined wholesale electricity prices fell from approximately 80 per cent in 2020 to just over 20 per cent during the first nine months of 2026.
France recorded a similar decline, from approximately 60 per cent to around 20 per cent, supported by its extensive nuclear generating capacity.
Consequently, increases in international gas prices are having a smaller effect on electricity markets in countries with substantial renewable or nuclear generation.
The ECB cautioned, however, that European economies remain exposed to global energy disruptions, particularly through industrial activity and international supply chains.
The international expansion of artificial intelligence has generated an additional source of demand for European manufacturers and technology companies.
Investment in computing infrastructure, digital services and specialised equipment has increased demand for products supplied by European businesses.
According to the ECB, global trade has performed considerably better than expected at the end of 2025.
The latest projections indicate international trade growth of approximately 4.7 per cent in 2026, compared with the 2 per cent forecast in December.
AI-related investment accounts for part of that improvement.
European manufacturers producing specialised machinery and technology equipment have benefited from increased export orders, while domestic investment in technology has supported economic activity.
However, the ECB found that the effects vary considerably between sectors.
Technology-equipment manufacturers recorded comparatively strong growth in output, employment and new orders.
Software companies performed better in output terms, but the improvement was less evident in employment and new business.
This uneven performance suggests that the economic benefits of the AI investment cycle are concentrated in particular industries.
Fiscal policy has provided another source of support.
The ECB estimates that the expansionary fiscal stance in the eurozone has increased to approximately 0.5 percentage points of GDP, twice the level anticipated in December 2025.
Much of the additional stimulus reflects higher German government spending on defence and infrastructure.
Other eurozone governments have introduced measures to limit the effect of energy prices on households and businesses.
Public investment and expenditure have therefore helped compensate for weakness in areas affected by higher import costs and international uncertainty.
Yet the ECB warned that fiscal support cannot necessarily continue at its present level.
Several eurozone governments face borrowing constraints, while additional public spending can place pressure on national budgets.
The ECB’s assessment comes amid expectations of further monetary tightening as policymakers respond to renewed energy-related inflation.
The central bank must consider whether higher energy costs will remain temporary or begin influencing wages, prices and inflation expectations more broadly.
Additional interest-rate increases could reduce inflationary pressures but would also raise borrowing costs for businesses, governments and households.
The economic recovery remains exposed to potential reversals in global demand, international trade and investment in artificial intelligence.
The ECB’s economists also identified geopolitical escalation and further supply-chain disruption as continuing risks.
Their findings indicate that reduced fossil-fuel dependence has made the eurozone less vulnerable to energy shocks, while technology investment and government spending have provided additional support.
Whether that resilience continues into 2027 will depend partly on the durability of international demand and the ability of European governments to maintain investment without increasing inflationary pressure.
Nuclear power has historically been a divisive issue: During the Cold War, an entire generation feared annihilation at the hands of the same basic technology that some want to use to power their homes.
That's unfortunate, because nuclear energy has considerable benefits—a reliable source of power with very few greenhouse gas emissions—with increasingly lower risks.
Thankfully, it seems that message is catching on with people from both major political parties.
"About six-in-ten U.S. adults now say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity," Pew Research reported in October 2025. "That's up from 43% in 2020, driven by increasing support among both Republicans and Democrats." The authors noted that "Republicans are more likely than Democrats" to favor the policy, with "roughly seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents" expressing support, but it still included 52 percent of Democrats and independents who lean in that direction.
Gallup found similar results earlier this year. The pollster "asked whether the U.S. should put more emphasis, less emphasis or about the same emphasis as it does now on producing domestic energy from each of six sources," wrote Megan Brenan. The six sources were solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, oil, and coal.
"Nuclear energy is the only one of the six sources to see support grow since 2021, rising seven points to 46%," Brenan added. "This shift is notable given that preferences for nuclear energy had historically been more evenly divided among responses of more, less and the same." Instead, those favoring more emphasis on nuclear power outranked both those who want less and those who wish for it to stay the same, by about 20 points each.
It seems the consensus has been building: In 2024, a poll of first-time voters in The Wall Street Journal found overwhelming support for nuclear energy as a means of fighting climate change.
The trend is welcome, and it marks a major reversal of anti-nuclear sentiment that goes back decades.
The China Syndrome, a film about a possible meltdown at a fictional California nuclear plant, premiered in the U.S. in March 1979. One character in the film warns that a meltdown could "render an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable, not to mention the cancer that would show up later."
Less than two weeks later, in a disastrous bit of timing, a malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Thankfully, Three Mile Island was not a disaster. "Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents," according to the World Nuclear Association. "There were no injuries or adverse health effects."
But those details were lost on the public. Several recording artists formed Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE), an activist group that opposed nuclear power. Just six months after Three Mile Island, MUSE held a series of "No Nukes" concerts at Madison Square Garden, plus a rally in Central Park that drew nearly 200,000 attendees.
That populist support spilled over into politics, particularly among Democrats. Running for president in 1980, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D–Mass.) called for a two-year moratorium on new nuclear plants. In its national platform, the Democratic Party pledged to "retire nuclear power plants in an orderly manner."
After the Three Mile Island incident, 39 planned nuclear plants were canceled.
That's a shame, for many reasons. As Reason's Ronald Bailey wrote in 2018, in a theoretical world where the development of U.S. nuclear power continued at its previous pace, "by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation….Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less."
Yet even decades later, plenty of people—again, particularly Democrats—still opposed nuclear energy.
"Of all the Democratic divides on climate," Politico wrote in 2019, "the role of nuclear power may be the biggest. Progressives and some environmental groups have long lumped it into a category with fossil fuels, and some have spent decades opposing it."
At the time, a number of people were running to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, and many of them had strong opinions on nuclear energy. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) said that she would not license any new nuclear reactors; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) pledged to go one step further and not renew the licenses of any existing reactors.
But things have changed in just a few short years, and nuclear energy is now an issue with potential bipartisan support. When did this pivot take place, and why?
"It was really around 2021, 2022, I would say that things really began to shift," James Walker, CEO of Nano Nuclear Energy, tells Reason. "A lot of the popular support looks like it's coming from younger people….It is a zero-carbon-emission power, and they have been raised to [be] more climate goal-focused" than older generations.
It's not just Gen Z either: Lawmakers are more keen on nuclear power now too. Earlier this month, the MORE American Fuel Act, sponsored by Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.) and Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.), passed the Senate unanimously. The bill "modernizes outdated Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements for uranium enrichment facilities and aligns them with the process already used for other nuclear facilities and reactors," according to a press release from Lummis. It also "lets enrichment companies begin construction at their own risk instead of waiting years for a construction license before breaking ground, while preserving public participation and the NRC's rigorous safety standards."
"What we've seen up in Washington is that there is a nervousness around keeping pace with AI development," Walker adds. "There is a concern that rivals that are also investing very heavily into AI, such as China, are building nuclear reactors like crazy, and one of the reasons they're doing that is just so they have baseload power that allows them to scale up their systems. They are building two gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants every year at the moment, and a lot of it is to try and catch up with the U.S. tech industry."
The post Nuclear Power Now Has Bipartisan Support appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Government decision is about how much oil and gas is sensible for UK to produce on the way to net zero
Andy Burnham hit the nail on the (well)head in his first fortnight as prime minister when he said: “The question isn’t whether Britain will still be using oil and gas, the question is, where does it come from?”
It was a nod towards several awkward energy facts. First, oil and gas provided 75% of the UK’s energy in 2025, government data shows. Second, even with the rollout of domestic renewables for generating electricity, about 43% of overall energy was imported last year.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Adura/Reuters

© Photograph: Adura/Reuters

© Photograph: Adura/Reuters

Exclusive: Officials say Miatta Fahnbulleh minded not to give approval in victory for climate campaigners
Miatta Fahnbulleh is minded to reject the giant Rosebank oilfield, sources have told the Guardian, in what would be a blow for the North Sea energy industry and a major victory for climate campaigners.
After approving the smaller Jackdaw gasfield on Wednesday, officials say the energy secretary is leaning towards refusing approval for what would be one of the biggest oilfields in the North Sea.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Paul Reid/PA

© Photograph: Paul Reid/PA

© Photograph: Paul Reid/PA