planet

The war in Iran is going to repeat a suicidal scenario from 1980. But with drones and kamikaze boats in the most fearsome point on the planet

by

At first glance it is just a strip of water between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, but its importance it’s huge. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the few places on the planet where global trade it literally depends of a maritime corridor just a few kilometers wide. Every day dozens of supertankers and monster container ships pass through it, connecting the Middle East. with the rest of the planeta constant choreography that moves energy, raw materials and essential products on a global scale. Therefore, when something happens there, the effect is greatly felt. beyond the Gulf. The most dangerous bottleneck on the planet. As we said, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most critical geographical points of the world economic system and also one of the most vulnerable. At its narrowest point it barely reaches 33 kilometers wide and thousands of ships pass through it every month connecting the Persian Gulf with the rest of the planet. Through this maritime strip it circulates around a fifth of oil that is traded in the world, large volumes of liquefied natural gas and an essential part of the industrial raw materials that sustain the global economy. But its importance goes beyond energy: it is also a key artery for trade in fertilizers and chemicals that end up directly influencing food production. When this route is interrupted, not only are the energy markets altered, the entire chain that connects agricultural fields, the chemical industry and supermarkets is shaken. War stops traffic. The military escalation between the United States, Israel and Iran has brought that critical point to the brink of a historic crisis. Attacks on oil tankers and commercial vessels, along with direct warnings from Tehran to shipping companies, have caused traffic through the strait to reduce. almost to zero in matter of days. Several vessels have been hit by projectiles or dronessome energy facilities in Gulf countries have been attacked and oil prices have reacted immediately with strong rises. Shipping companies and insurers have begun to cancel policies or dramatically raise war insurance costs, as some ships attempt to cross the zone with their location systems turned off to reduce the probability of being identified as a target. Washington’s response and the convoys. Faced with the risk that the global energy flow will be blocked, the United States has raised an extraordinary measure: escort oil tankers and commercial vessels with the US Navy and also offer financial guarantees and political insurance to reassure shipping companies. The idea seeks to avoid a global energy shock, but it implies send warships directly to the most dangerous area of ​​the Gulf. Organizing maritime convoys is a complex operation that requires destroyers, aircraft and military resources that could not be used in other missions. Furthermore, even with an escort, experts remember that ships would continue to navigate within an extremely hostile space, where reaction times to attacks can be reduced to minutes. The ghost of the eighties. I was counting this morning the financial times that the situation inevitably reminds one of the most tense episodes of the Cold War in the Middle East: the so-called “tanker war” which developed during the conflict between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s. So both countries They systematically attacked maritime traffic in the Gulf with missiles, naval mines and air strikes. A kamikaze battle involving more than four hundred commercial ships were damaged or sunk and the United States deployed dozens of ships to escort convoys and protect oil tankers. Still, the risk it was huge: American frigates were severely damaged by mines and missiles and dozens of sailors were killed. That crisis demonstrated the extent to which a regional conflict could put global trade in check. The difference: drones and kamikaze boats. The war in Iran is about to end repeat the scenario suicide bombing of 1980, but with a difference: now there are drones and kamikaze boats at the most fearsome point for the planet. From then until now the Iranian arsenal has evolved radically and today it combines long-range anti-ship missiles, thousands of cruise shellsarmed drones, diesel submarines, modern naval mines and fast vessels capable of swarming attacks. Added to this are unmanned surface vehicles, small ships loaded with explosives that hit the hulls of ships at the waterline, causing flooding in the engine room and rapid sinking. In a strait “so narrow” and close to the Iranian coast, these systems offer Tehran a obvious tactical advantage. An economic weapon to paralyze everything. Even without completely blocking the passage, the simple risk of attacks can paralyze maritime traffic. Recent history of the red seawhere attacks by militias allied with Iran diverted trade routes for months, shows that it only takes a few incidents to skyrocket shipping costs and force shipping companies to look for much longer alternative routes. In Hormuz the effect would be much greater because it is of the natural exit of the energy production of the entire Gulf. Tanker freight rates have already skyrocketed and any sign of mines or new attacks could double shipping prices again. A global pulse with unpredictable consequences. Close Hormuz also has a cost for Iranwhose economy depends largely on exporting its own oil, especially to China. However, the strategic logic of the conflict could push Tehran to use the strait as an economic lever to pressure Washington and its allies. In any case, the longer the war continues, the greater the temptation on both sides to use energy as a weapon. In that scenario, the world could face a perfect storm: skyrocketing oil, scarce fertilizers and more expensive food. All concentrated in a strait just a few kilometers wide that once again becomes the most fragile point in the global economic system. Image | eutrophication&hypoxiaNZ Defense Force, National Museum of the US Navy In Xataka | Shahed drones are spreading terror in the Gulf. Ukraine has offered the solution, and the price to pay has a name In Xataka | Spain has … Read more

The problem is that, until now, Korean brands ignored 90% of the planet

by

A South Korean cosmetics brand was recently forced to apologize after promoting one of its blushes by describing the shade as the “adorable cheeks of a Mongolian baby.” Controversy broke out when content creator Khaliun reported on Instagramin a video that surpassed 270,000 views, that the brand was exploiting an outdated stereotype. Faced with global pressure, the company modified the text for “a beautiful deep mocha pink color that appears gently warmed by the sun.” This incident is not an isolated anecdote. It is the reflection of an industry that exports its products to the entire planet, but that has historically designed its cosmetics with a single demographic in mind, systematically excluding most of the world’s population. The Western fascination with Korean beauty began in the 2010s. This first wave of K-Beauty focused almost exclusively in skin careexporting concepts such as double cleansing or the coveted “glass skin”. As these were facial routines, inclusion was not an obvious challenge. In parallel, K-pop and K-dramas became the perfect vehicle for soft power. “The visibility of K-pop and K-dramas reinforces the perception of the effectiveness of K-beauty,” explains Professor Hye Jin Lee to cnn. The consequence was immediate: in 2024, South Korea surpassed France as the main exporter of cosmetics to the United States, with 1.7 billion dollars in shipments. The problem arose with the arrival of the second wavewhen the trend expanded into color cosmetics and hybrid makeup. Traditionally, Korean brands They launched their makeup bases in just three to five extremely pale shades, baptized with names such as “porcelain”, “ivory” or “sand”, designed for its domestic market. When making the international leap, darker-skinned consumers found themselves facing a wall: the most innovative industry of the moment, simply, I didn’t make products for them.. The standard that excludes without shouting The K-pop industry has been celebrated for challenging gender norms — male idols wearing makeup or traditionally feminine clothing — but it has not been as racially disruptive. The dominant standards They continue to emphasize light skin, a small V-shaped face, big eyes, and a slim body. A recent academic article, published by International Journal of Social Humanity & Management Research, defines these standards as a form of cultural racism: not an explicit discrimination, but a symbolic system that presents an aesthetic as natural and universal while excluding other corporalities. The mechanism does not need to proclaim “we don’t want dark skin.” It is enough to define beauty as something incompatible with them. In the Asian context, the preference for light skin has historical roots linked to social status and neo-Confucian traditions where whiteness symbolized respect for its principles. This is summed up in the Chinese term bai fu mei (white, rich, beautiful), which is still commonly used to describe a perfect woman. But when that standard becomes a global consumer product, the reading changes. The globalization of K-Beauty has caused cultural clashes evident. On YouTube, the video series “Black Girl Tries Korean Makeup” made the frustration visible of black creators in the face of the lack of dark tones and the omnipresence of whitening products, pointing out a bias of “anti-blackness”. In response, part of the Korean audience defended the brands by arguing that Korea is a monoethnic country and that its standards should not be judged by “the western prism”. another study by researcher Andrea Gómez shows how “Asian beauty” is associated in Latin America with youth, health and clear skin. The concept of whiteness is not just chromatic: it implies status, modernity and privilege. In their interviews, salespeople and makeup artists acknowledged that many clients requested shades lighter than their real skin. Not necessarily to look Korean, but to get closer to an ideal historically linked to social advancement imposed since colonial times. This is where K-beauty fits in as the perfect piece: it sells scientific innovation and, at the same time, reinforces an aspiration for clarity and neatness that was already established. As Vogue Business points outthe global beauty industry “thrives on insecurity and the allure of attainable ‘improvements’ that privilege white skin.” And in many cultures, light skin continues to function as symbolic capital. A deep or strategic inclusion? The real change came when diversity was shown to be enormously profitable. The most representative case is that of the brand THROW. When African-American YouTuber Miss Darcei tried her popular foundation in cushion On social networks, she showed that the initial offer of extremely pale tones left her out. The brand responded by creating new ringtones and sending them to him; In a matter of months they expanded their range to 40 colors. The result of listening to a diverse audience was an astonishing increase in 55.465% in brand sales in the United States. Since then, other brands they have reacted. Dear Dahlia expanded the shade range of its liquid blushes and foundations to reach deeper complexions. K-Brown was born in Seoul focused exclusively on the care of melanin-rich skin. Yepo Beauty launched foundations designed for darker tones under the tagline “inclusive K-beauty.” In addition, corporate discourse also changes. Global giants like Unilever and L’Oréal they have already announced the elimination of explicit references to “whitening” or lightening of the skin on its packaging in the face of international criticism. But not all adjustment is virtuous. When the Youthforia brand released a tone 600 Described by critics as a pure black with no undertones resembling human skin, the product caused a stir and was discontinued. A poorly executed inclusion can quickly become a caricature. The tyranny of beauty The racial and aesthetic debate intersects with another axis of oppression: the obsession with eternal youth. The global popularity of collagen—in powder, cream or capsule—reflects growing anxiety and pressure not to age. This is despite experts such as Dr Afshin Mosahebi questioning the scientific soundness of many of these ambitious anti-aging promises. This demand to stop time falls disproportionately on women. Psychology Today remember that the standards of whiteness and bodily perfection present in K-Culture They are not … Read more

Data centers in space promise to save the planet. And also ruin the earth’s orbit

by

Wikipedia should update its page dedicated to the word “ambition” to include Elon Musk’s photo. The tycoon has announced a megaproject according to which his two companies SpaceX and xAI will work together to launch a constellation of one million satellites that will function as data centers in orbit. The problem is that although the idea It has its advantages, it also has an impact potentially terrible for the future of our planet. Energy efficiency. That is the great advantage of the space data centers that Musk proposes. In space, solar panels can perform optimally without the obstacles posed by Earth’s atmosphere and climate. According to SpaceX, the reduction in the cost of launching its rockets makes space a perfect alternative for AI data centers. The plan. He project that has been presented to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) consists of placing these satellites in sun-synchronous orbits between 500 and 2,000 km high. That would allow the satellites to act as interconnected nodes among themselves and also with the satellites of the Starlink network through optical laser links. The plan, of course, will have to overcome important challenges like refrigeration. Dissipating the heat generated by millions of chips in the vacuum of space is complex, since satellites act as “natural thermoses.” And radiation, what? The problem of cosmic radiation will also have to be solved. Advanced chips are very vulnerable to processing errors caused by energetic particles. It seems that AI processors are surprisingly resistant to this type of problembut the deployment of such chips on a massive scale in space could introduce new conflicts. On-site repair, nothing. In today’s data centers, if a problem arises, a technician can physically travel if necessary to solve it. In space, physical repair is not feasible, which would force a strategy of assuming that those chips that become functionally damaged will be completely lost. SpaceX would have to continuously launch substitutes to compensate for this “mortality” of components, which complicates logistics and costs. There are optimistic perspectives in this regard, and for some the bills do work out. Kessler syndrome. But above all there is a latent concern in the field of space security. Launching a million new satellites into already congested orbits multiplies the probability of chain collisions, validating the theory proposal in Kessler syndrome. A single major collision could generate a cloud of debris that would take decades to clear, further threatening climate monitoring missions or even global communications. There are already ideas to “regulate orbital traffic” by coordinating it, and SpaceX has its own “situational awareness” system, Stargazeto avoid problems, but of course, no system is completely perfect. air pollution. Without forgetting that the atmospheric impact is equally worrying. Some are estimated 25,000 Starship flightsand the re-entry of satellites that end their life cycle or die prematurely would cause metals and particles to be released into the upper atmosphere. According to experts, these chemical residues could damage the ozone layer and cause uncertain climate consequences. You can’t see anything. The astronomers, who They had already protested about Starlinkthey will have an even bigger problem with this new idea. The threat to astronomy is clear, because given the altitude and size of these satellites, it is likely that they form a bright band visible even to the naked eye, making scientific observation difficult and even changing the way we see the sunset. Orbital computing may have advantages, but before launching it we should remember that space—especially the space we see—is a shared and finite resource. In Xataka | Starlink’s dominance in space begins to move: another company already has permission for a constellation of 4,000 satellites

warm the planet comfortably

by

“Stay cool while you warm up America “United States again.” With that brief message, the Trump Administration has declared war on the function Start & Stop that most cars have implemented for a few years. He has announced the Environmental Protection Agency as one of the measures to protect the vehicle, please the consumer and “fix a stupid feature” that slowly kills the car. Where do we start? ANDl advertisement. Here it is: 27 seconds of video send a very clear message: the Start & Stop button is unnecessary in a powerful car, turn off your air conditioning and it’s ‘woke’. It is also curious to see the number of errors there are in a video of just 27 seconds. And we are not just referring to the continuity failure when placing the red car first on the right and then on the left. “Universally hated”. Beyond the video, there is a release in which the EPA is proud of the decision. In 2012, the EPA itself (under the Obama Administration) advocated for a system of rewards and subsidies to encourage the adoption of Start & Stop systems in vehicles. The operation is “simple”: when a car stops at the traffic light, the engine turns off. When it is idling, too, but the system ‘starts’ again as soon as we want to start driving again. The theory says that emissions and consumption are reduced, but Lee Zeldin, head of the EPA, disagrees. “As I traveled through all 50 states last year, countless Americans told me that they not only disliked the system, but wanted it to be a thing of the past. Not only do many find it annoying, but it kills the battery and has no benefit to the environment. Consumer choice is a priority for Trump’s EPA, and we are proud to continue delivering common sense for the American people,” says the administrator. The importance of language. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy notes that removing incentives for brands to stop adding the feature will “make cars more affordable again by eliminating a stupid requirement that is universally hated.” The statement as a whole is very interesting because it is difficult to see an official document using such… passionate language. And it demonstrates the importance of language to reach exactly the population you want to reach. In just a few paragraphs and in external statements in which it is said that “everyone hates him”, he has been baptized as an “Obama switch” (when it is also in the rest of the world) and it is stated that “it kills the battery without any significant benefit to the environment”, they send a very powerful message. There is sometimes a misconception that these systems are bad for the engine or starting, so some drivers disable the functionality” – Alex Knizek, director of automotive testing development at Consumer Reports Raising an eyebrow. But no matter how powerful it is, it does not imply that it is true. The system was not invented by Obama, but was a response to the oil crisis from the 80s. Like many other technologies, it was widely applied decades later, but the idea is simple: if the engine is turned off when it can be turned off, it will consume less and emit less CO₂. We don’t say it: the United States says it. Well, the Department of Energy in a analysis. In the technical study, they tested four vehicles with and without Start & Stop in three situations: urban cycle (FTP), aggressive cycle (US06) and cycle in New York. The result was that there were consumption improvements of up to 7.27% in the FTP cycle and up to 26.4% in New York, a city in which 38% of the journey is spent idling (the engine continues running, polluting and consuming). Canada also measured improvements in consumption of between 4 and 10% depending on conditions. Or both. Here the logic is overwhelming: less engine time running, greater fuel savings and lower emissions. And here you may be thinking that it is true that the system is sometimes annoying, the battery suffers and the air conditioning stops working. There is an asterisk in this matter and it all depends on whether the car is combustion, hybrid and even how the system has been designed. In a combustion car, if the engine is turned off, the air conditioning is turned off. The fan keeps pulling air and pushing fresh air until it runs out. At a traffic light it is something that is barely noticeable. In a hybrid, the most common thing is that the air conditioning system is regulated by the electrical system, so that problem would not be present (and the Prius in the advertisement above is a hybrid). Logic tells us that the battery suffers more by having more work and increasing cycles, but the industry and consumer organizations (such as the American Consumer Reports) point to reinforced electrical systemsprecisely to withstand the overload. And something more important: there is no evidence of massive failures attributed to this technology and the moments in which it is not activated may be because, consciously, the system is protecting a battery that may be about to die or in poor condition. Volantazo and “drill, baby, drill”. But it doesn’t matter the evidence because Zeldin is proud to have signed “the largest deregulatory action in US history.” It is the continuation of the shift in climate policies that Trump’s second presidency has embarked on. They claim that there is no scientific evidence that the climate changeor put health at risk or to environment and his battle in cars is not only against the Start & Stop button. Also against other technologies such as the reuse of engine heat to heat the interior of the car, the use of reflective paint for better passive insulation or research into more efficient fuels. Locking this, and stopping giving “environmental credits” to manufacturers who adopt these measures, the United States continues on … Read more

We just found a planetary system that breaks the rules of the game with a planet where it should not be

by

The universe has a curious habit: every time we think we have a perfect standard model for how things form, something comes along that forces us to rewrite the textbooks. At the moment, our solar system (like many others) seems to have a logical order with rocky planets like the Earth near the Sun and gas giants far away, but what just published the magazine Science It is the exception that confirms that the rules are meant to be broken. A new model. An international team, with strong Spanish participation from IEEC-CSIC and the IAChas discovered LHS 1903, a system 120 light years away which presents an “impossible” architecture according to traditional models: rocky, gaseous, gaseous and… rocky again. The importance of order. This study details the discovery of four exoplanets orbiting a red dwarf starwhich a priori does not seem anything out of the ordinary. But the focus is on how they are placed, as can be summarized in the following list: LHS 1903 b: an inner rocky planet. LHS 1903 c: a gaseous sub-Neptune. LHS 1903 d: another gaseous sub-Neptune. LHS 1903 e: an outer rocky planet. The normal thing in planetary formation is that the outer planets, when formed far from the heat of the star where ice and gas are abundant, accumulate enormous gaseous atmospheres like Jupiter or Neptune. This is why a rocky, bare planet, without a gaseous envelope, in the outermost orbit is an anomaly that has baffled astronomers. It’s like there are two Earths in locations where they shouldn’t be. How it has been seen. To confirm this strange system, a single telescope was not enough. The finding is the result of the combination of data from TESSNASA’s exoplanet hunter, and the satellite’s surgical precision Cheops of the European Space Agency (ESA). In this way, while TESS detects the general transit signals when a planet passes in front of the star, Cheops is able to refine those observations to determine the exact size. Combining all this with velocity measurements from ground-based observatories such as the Canary Islands telescope, the team was able to calculate the densities and confirm that planet ‘e’ is indeed a solitary rock on the outside. How is it possible? A priori, there are two theories to explain why a planet loses its gas and becomes rocky: photoevaporation and the internal heat of the planet. However, neither of these theories work for LHS 1903 e. As the most distant planet, it receives much less radiation than its inner gaseous brethren and is too cold to have lost its atmosphere on its own. In this way, if the planet did not lose its atmosphere a priori, the only logical explanation that the authors find is that it never had it. The study proposes a training model in a gas-depleted environment where the protoplanetary disk ((the cloud of gas and dust where the planets are born) did not form all the bodies at once. What happened, theoretically speaking, is that the inner planets formed first when there was a lot of gas and the outer planet formed later. He is left with the crumbs. By the time the last planet finished forming, the gas in the disk had already dissipated or been absorbed by its older brothers. In this way, it was formed from solid “leftovers”, with no gas available to build an atmosphere. This supports the theory of the “inside-out” formation, where the planets appear sequentially. It is a scenario that has rarely been confirmed with such observational clarity as until now in this system. Its importance. This discovery forces us to rethink the history of solar systems around red dwarfs, which are the most common stars in our galaxy. And we even thought that the position of a planet determined its destiny, but LHS 1903 teaches us that timing is just as important. The LHS 1903 system thus becomes a perfect laboratory: four planets, the same star, but completely different birth stories coexisting in a stable orbital balance. Images | THAT Images | There are satellites in space that need to be “towed.” And a company from Galicia has exactly what is needed

We know it as “the red planet”, but 3.37 billion years ago Mars was almost as blue as Earth

by

The mystery of Mars and water has a new chapter. The missions like Curiosity in the Gale crater they show clear evidence for the existence of liquid water lakes for thousands or millions of years. That climate models show that the early Mars It was a cold place. with temperatures significantly below the freezing point, it was elucidated with seasonal ice shields. However, among the pending subjects of Mars astronomy is knowing how much there was water and when was there. Mars was (half) blue. A recent study published in the scientific journal npj Space Exploration echoes the discovery of a “tide line” that explains that there was once an interconnected water system. Ignatius Argadestya, the lead author of the study, explains that although today Mars is a dry and reddish planet: “our results show that in the past it was a blue planet similar to Earth.” In fact, they have been able to demonstrate the existence of the deepest and most extensive ocean that has existed on Mars to date, account the scientist that half the red planet was once blue: “an ocean that extended across the planet’s northern hemisphere.” Valles Marineris in Hi-Res The “deltas” of Mars. More specifically, they have investigated geological formations called deposits with steep front located in the region of Valles Marineristhe largest canyon system in the solar system. Using very high resolution images from Cassis of the European Space Agency and the CTX and HiRISE from NASA (the latter provides a maximum resolution of about 25 to 30 centimeters per pixel), have been able to identify these deposits with identical morphology to the river deltas that we see in rivers such as the Ebro or the Danube when they flow into the sea. Thus, on Mars there was a time when water flowed from the mountains through branching channels until it reached a kind of lake or sea, where sediments were deposited. These deltas end in an abrupt step that is located at exactly the same altitude at different points on the planet, between -3750 and -3650 meters with respect to the reference level of Mars. About 3.37 billion years ago. This is not a geological coincidence, it is that at one time there was a body of water like a sea that maintained a stable level for a long time: it is a mark of the shore of a primeval Mars, since these deposits were formed between the Late Hesperian and Early Amazonian periods. According to the research team, that was the time in the history of Mars with the greatest availability of liquid water on its surface. Why is it important. Already had applied previously the existence and size of this Martian ocean, but its conclusions come with more precise and direct evidence. In addition, they have been able to determine when the water peak occurred on Mars. The deltas found constitute a magnificent base to study their sediments in depth in search of traces of life because where there is water, there could be life. On the other hand, among the next steps is to understand how Mars went from having an ocean that occupied half the planet to being a frozen desert. In fact, there are already clues: the research team detected desiccation cracks and dunes on these channels, which indicates that after this aquatic period, there was a progressive drying until they became arid. In Xataka | Mars has just entered the exclusive club of planets with rays. This is discouraging news for NASA. In Xataka | We had been wondering for decades how Mars could have water, cold and life. Today we finally have an answer Cover | Javier Miranda

The most surveilled place on the planet is not Ukraine or Taiwan. You are on a Canary Island with thousands of sensors pointing to a lethal threat

by

For almost three months, between September and December 2021, the island of La Palma experienced the eruption longest and most destructive of its recent history. It happened when the Tajogait volcanoand opened the earth in the Cumbre Vieja dorsal and forced the evacuation of thousands of people, buried entire neighborhoods under lava and irreversibly altered the landscape and life of the island, inaugurating a new stage in which the end of the fire did not mean the end of the volcano. The town that did not stop breathing volcano. In Puerto Naos The lava never arrived, but the volcano did, seeping under streets, garages and foundations in the form of carbon dioxide, an invisible gas that for years kept the neighborhood evacuated and turned daily life into a permanent risk equation. After the eruption of Tajogaite, the ground continued to exhale CO₂ of magmatic origin, reaching in some points extreme concentrationstypical of a lethal environment, forcing the closure of homes, businesses and beaches while residents learned that the danger no longer burned on the surface, but silently accumulated under their feet. Thousands of sensors and an experiment. They counted this week in a BBC report that has approached the enclave that the response transformed Puerto Naos into the most guarded place in the world in terms of CO₂, with more than 1,300 sensors distributed throughout homes, streets, streetlights, beaches, garages and hotels, connected to a continuous monitoring system capable of detecting any spike in real time. This deployment, driven by the CO₂ Alert projectallowed gas to stop being an unpredictable threat and become a measured, interpreted and managed phenomenon, making it possible the progressive return of the neighbors and the reopening of the urban center, always under the premise that normality here only exists as long as the data confirms that the air continues to be breathable. Living with alarms. For years, life in Puerto Naos was reorganized around the sensorswith garages permanently open for ventilation, closed basements, cordoned off areas and neighbors who learned to live with warning beeps as part of the soundscape. CO₂, denser than air, accumulated in the low points and it became visible like a diffuse waterfall in narrow courtyards, killing small animals along the way, corroding metals and remembering that the volcano was still active even though it was no longer expelling lava, molding not only the terrain but also psychology and decisions of those who refused to leave their home permanently. View of part of Puerto Naos Playa Chica, the pulse. In 2026 the problem is no longer general, but surgical: a small strip in Playa Chica and some specific garages where CO₂ continues to emerge straight from the underground through extremely porous terrain, one described by technicians as a “volcanic Gruyere cheese.” All the effort is now concentrated there, not so much to bring the town back to life (because it has already returned) but to close the last point where the volcano still sets the pace, remembering along the way that the eruption did not end when the fire ceased, but when the subsoil stopped breathing its last breath. Extract gas from the earth. The proven solution successfully by experts changes the traditional logic in these situations: instead of ventilating the buildings, the ground has been ventilated, capturing CO₂ underground and conveying it through pipes to controlled expulsion points near the sea, where the gas is quickly dispersed without danger. Not only that. Tests have shown drastic reductionsgoing from concentrations close to half a million ppm to safe levels. In other words, it has been confirmed that the method works and that the pending challenge is not a conceptual hypothesis, but a technical one, a fine adjustment to avoid load losses and guarantee that the system can operate in a stable and permanent way. Close the volcano. Puerto Naos it’s already openinhabited and functioning, but closing the volcano means turning this experiment into a complete a definitive infrastructureintegrate the extraction of CO₂ into the urban network and accept that the island will continue to be a “volcano” even when it seems calm. Perhaps for this reason, no one expects inaugurations or epic endings to what happened, just a silent moment in which Playa Chica leaves to be an exception and the air will once again be just that, demonstrating that on the island of La Palma the volcanic forces not only have shaped the earthbut also the way in which a community has learned to live, monitor and resist over it. Image | Eduardo RobainaHyperfinch In Xataka | Gran Canaria is increasingly at risk of blackouts. And he already has an idea on the table: imitate Russia in the Arctic In Xataka | The Canary Islands and Galicia have set off the Navy’s alarm bells. Russia’s ghost fleet has arrived in Spain with warships

The biggest geopolitical risk on the planet is not Greenland. It’s a smaller island with a disturbing neighbor: Taiwan

by

Throughout the cold warthere were points on the map whose real value was not measured by their size, but by what could be triggered if someone tried to force the situation. Today, one of those places once again concentrates gazes, calculations and uncomfortable silences among the great powers. and it is not in Greenlandbut on a smaller island. The global risk enclave. The tension between United States and China is concentrating increasingly evident in Taiwan, a territory small in size but enormous in strategic consequences. While Washington allows itself dramatize scenarios secondary in the Arctic, Chinese military maneuvers around the island they have been become routineincreasingly aggressive and similar to real blocking or maximum pressure tests. The absence of clear and quick responses from the White House projects a dangerous sign in a context where deterrence depends less on formal declarations than on immediate political reflections. The deterrence that is called into question. The contrast between Trump’s political lukewarmness and the warnings of the US military apparatus itself has opened a visible crack. The Telegraph said that Pentagon commanders have been warning for some time that China is preparing to be able to fight and win a conflict over Taiwan before the end of the decade, although that diagnosis does not always translate into credible public messages. This dissonance reduces the perceived cost of a Chinese action and leaves open the possibility of a calculation error on Xi Jinping’s part, especially if he interprets American caution as a lack of will. Taiwan as a key piece. Taiwan’s importance to the United States is not symbolic, but rather structural. We are talking about an advanced democracy in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes, one that houses the core of world production advanced semiconductor and is part of the first island chain that limits military projection China in the Pacific. From that perspective, the fall would be a direct blow to the global economy, Western technological superiority and Washington’s strategic credibility in Asia. Taiwan Navy It’s not 1996 anymore. Unlike previous crises, when American naval and air superiority was overwhelming, today the balance is much tighter. China has built a navy larger than the American in number of ships, an air force with hundreds of fifth generation fighters and, above all, a massive arsenal conventional missiles capable of hitting bases, ports and fleets at great distances. Although the United States continues to spend more on defense, lower Chinese industrial costs and its geographic proximity to the theater of operations significantly erode that advantage. The “logistics” weapon. The New York Times recalled in a column that one of the factors that moderated Beijing’s behavior for years was its dependence on critical raw materials from countries aligned with the West, especially Australian iron ore. That brake is weakening as China secure supplies alternatives from Africa, reducing their vulnerability to sanctions or blockades in the event of conflict. The result: an environment in which the economic costs of a war over Taiwan, while enormous, are already They are not so deterrent for Beijing as they were in the past. No clear winner. The open simulations and internal leaks From Washington they agree on a most uncomfortable diagnosis: if necessary, a war over Taiwan it would be devastating even for those who managed to impose their immediate objective. China could fail in invasion, but the United States and its allies would pay a military price not seen since World War II, with massive losses of aircraft, ships and personnel. Taiwan, even if it managed to resist, would be deeply damaged as a country and as a global economic engine, dragging the world into a prolonged crisis. The island that weighs the most. All this explains why Taiwan is, by far, the increased geopolitical risk of the planet at this time and a strategic priority, surely far above scenarios like greenland. It is not about territory, or not only, but about credibility, balance of power and stability of the international system between two superpowers. And, on that board, every gesture of ambiguity counts, and every sign of weakness can bring closer a conflict that no one would win on paperbut whose consequences would affect everyone. Image | Pexels, 總統府 In Xataka | China has just shown the world that it “plays” in another league: it only needs one soldier to control 200 drones in combat In Xataka | China’s best weapon doesn’t fire a single bullet: 300km ‘moving wall’ to close sea routes instantly

the greenhouse gas that warms the planet faster than CO₂

by

In November 1776, while traveling on horseback between Italy and Switzerland, Carlo Giuseppe Campi saw bubbles in the marshes surrounding Lake Maggiore. He approached them and decided to investigate them. Almost by accident he discovered that they were flammable and He told it to his friend Alessandro Volta. Years later, Volta discovered that this gas was methane. Since then we have not stopped having problems with him. Colorless, odorless and highly flammable, methane (CH₄) It is a gas composed of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. It is the simplest hydrocarbon and, in fact, is the fundamental component of natural gas (and therefore a key fuel for boilers, power plants and part of industry). In addition to the energy context, methane also appears in biological and geological processes: it is a chemical compound that arises, naturally, in the processes of anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. That is, in wetlands, in landfills, in the digestive system of ruminants or in large bags under the ground. Otherwise, methane is used for many other things. Not in vain, it is a raw material for the chemical industry and is an essential part of the production of hydrogen, ammonia or methanol. But the global conversation is not has been talking about methane for decades for none of that. Because, curiously, the big problem with methane is that it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. After all, from what we know, its molecules capture between about 82 times hotter than CO2 (taking a period of 20 years as a reference). If we broaden the focus and use the 100-year term, its global warming potential is 29.88 times greater than that of CO₂. The only good thing, so as not to paint a picture that is too gloomy or malicious, is that it has an atmospheric half-life (11.8 years on average) compared to a much longer average. This explains why, despite collecting much more heat than the other, the long-term impact of methane is not so great. So? Well, it is an “accelerator” of short-term warming and, in that sense, it is a first-order problem for us. Not only because we are not moving forward; but because if we manage to reduce it, it can provide relatively rapid climate benefits. The problem is that it is not an easy thing to solve. On a planetary scale, annual methane emissions are around hundreds of millions of tons and 40% of them are due to natural sources that we cannot directly control. The other 60% is due, generally speaking, to human sources. According to the Global Methane Budget, there are three main causes: agriculture and rice, fossil fuels and waste. Agrolivestock Monika Kubala For years, experts have discussed the impact of livestock farming (especially ruminants such as cows and sheep). The calculation, in any case, is complex: not only is it difficult to estimate methane production from enteric fermentation (due to digestion), but things as ‘simple’ as manure management suffered from an “information blackout” that makes them very difficult to evaluate. In addition to this (and it is important), you must add the rice. Every year they consume more than 500 million metric tons of rice. That’s a lot of rice (it’s the main source of calories for 3 billion people), but it’s also a lot of methane: because, favored by floods that leave wide plains without oxygen, our gas rises to the surface. Fossil fuels Methane leaking throughout the oil, gas and coal chain is also difficult to measure, but less so. After all, leaks in wells and equipment, ventsinefficient flaring, outdated compressors, plumbing or storage are money wasted. And if we know how to measure something, it is money. The International Energy Agency esteem that the production and use of fossil fuels generated about 120 million tons of methane emissions in 2023. Waste, landfills and wastewater This case is the simplest and the one that most clearly shows that the methane problem really does not matter much to us: landfills, wastewater and other types of waste accumulation areas are areas especially conducive to the generation of methane (due to pure anaerobic activity) and since we do not capture it, it is released into the atmosphere. Thus, the atmospheric concentration of methane remains high and increasing. To give an example, NOAA estimated which, between 2023 and 2024, went from 1915.73 ppb to 1921.79 ppb on average. And, as I say, it is a shame because methane is surely one of the fastest routes: according to UNEP/CCAC, a strong reduction in human emissions (up to 45% this decade, with available measures) “could avoid almost 0.3 ºC of warming by 2045.” Biomethane (also called “renewable natural gas“) is the term that we have coined to refer to a methane of biological origin that is obtained, above all, by improving biogas: the CO₂ and other contaminants in it are eliminated until a gas rich in CH₄ is ​​achieved and comparable, in almost all aspects, to natural gas. As a result of this process, a fuel is obtained that can be injected into the gas network. That is, it is an efficient way to take advantage of (and make the capture and processing economically interesting) a whole series of waste: from manure and sewage sludge to municipal waste or agro-industrial remains. Obviously, “green methane” does not automatically mean that it has “zero environmental impact.” Only that it has a biological origin and can be used like natural gas. For its environmental impact to be low, other things are required such as control of leaks, the origin of the waste or its impact on the network as a whole. Image | Katie Rodriguez In Xataka | The importance of the colors of hydrogen and what it means if it is green, brown, blue or turquoise

Russia has reminded the planet that the war in Ukraine is a ticking bomb. And for this he has pressed a nuclear button: Oreshnik

by

Over the past few months, the war in Ukraine has seemed advance by inertia: fronts that barely move, stalled negotiations and constant wear and tear that threatens with normalizing the conflict in Europe. But in recent weeks Moscow has remembered, without the need for major territorial conquests, that it continues to have the ability to alter the chessboard with a single gesture: the nuclear one. The button that is always there. In a stuck war In the mud of the front and industrial wear and tear, Russia has once again remembered that it is still sitting on a strategic bomb pressing a button that does not need to be pressed completely to take effect: that of Oreshnik missilean intermediate-range system with nuclear capacity whose use, even with inert or conventional charges, functions as a political message rather than as a tactical weapon. The launch detection from the Kapustin Yar strategic polygon and the subsequent explosions near Lviv, a few kilometers from the Polish border, do not seek so much to destroy decisive objectives as to point out that Moscow can escalate whenever it wants and from wherever it wants, even from facilities associated with its strategic nuclear forces, deliberately breaking the “conventional” routine of the conflict. Symbolic weapon, real threat. It we have counted before: the Oreshnik, derived from the RS-26 program and capable of carrying multiple warheads that separate in flight, it is not a missile designed to win battles in Ukraine, but to cross psychological red lines in Europe. Its hypersonic speed, its potential range of up to 5,500 kilometers and the fact that Ukraine lacks defenses capable of intercepting it turn each launch into a demonstration of the structural vulnerability of NATO’s eastern flank. When Russia first used it against Dnipro in 2024 with dummy heads, he made it clear that he was not testing marksmanship, but rather strategic credibility. Now, by bringing the impact closer to the NATO border and the European Union, the message is even more explicit. Controlled climbing. The reappearance of the Oreshnik is no coincidence. It occurs while Ukraine refuses to give up territory in the negotiations, while Moscow insists that any Western troops deployed on Ukrainian soil would be a legitimate objective and while Washington, under Trump, intensifies pressure on Russia’s allies like Venezuela. The Kremlin justifies the attacks as retaliation for alleged Ukrainian attempts to attack the residence of Vladimir Putinaccusations that even US intelligence services they doubtbut the real logic is different: to raise the psychological and political cost of Western support without formally crossing the nuclear threshold. Energy, winter and strategic terror. As in previous winters, Russian missiles and drones are once again baiting the Ukrainian energy infrastructureleaving entire neighborhoods in kyiv and other cities without electricity or heating amid sub-zero temperatures. The Oreshnik fits into this strategy of calculated terror: not only does it damage critical facilities, but it amplifies the feeling of helplessness by introducing a weapon that symbolizes the maximum possible escalation. Ukraine responds by hitting power grids in Russian regions such as Belgorod or Oryol, but the strategic asymmetry remains intact. Europe as a target audience. Furthermore, by hitting near Lviv and, by extension, Poland, Russia is not just talking to kyiv, but with Brussels, Berlin and Paris. The Oreshnik is a reminder that Ukrainian theater is inseparably linked to European security and that any expansion of military support has an immediate reflection on the deterrence ladder. It is no coincidence that Moscow recently showed the deployment of the system in Belarus, further extending the reach shadow over the continent. The temptation of blackmail. Thus, with minimal and extremely slow territorial advances, and a growing human and industrial cost, Russia uses the Oreshnik missile as a substitute for victories on the battlefield. It is not a weapon to conquer Ukraine, of course, but rather to remind the world that the conflict cannot be closed by ignoring the Russian nuclear dimension. From that prism, each launch is a warning: Moscow does not need to detonate a warhead to reactivate the founding fear of the Cold War. Just show the button, press it even half and make it clear that it is still there, waiting, like a time bomb that sets the pace of all future negotiations. Image | Ministry of Defense of Ukraine In Xataka | Ukraine has become an animal slaughterhouse: Russian soldiers appear with horses and drones blow them up In Xataka | First it was Finland, now the US has confirmed it: when the war in Ukraine ends, Russia has a plan for Europe

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.