Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Ministers are rewriting planning rules to make it easier to approve intensive livestock farms, despite ongoing concerns about water pollution, air quality and local opposition.Freedom of Information documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have been discussed in response to lobbying by the country’s leading chicken producers for at least two years.The British Poultry Council (BPC) told farming minister Angela Eagle last autumn that “access to more growing space is the number one priority for the poultry meat sector.”In a submission to the government’s farm profitability review, the BPC argued that the need for a solution—whether through planning reform or land‑use policy—“dwarfs all other issues currently facing us.”Ahead of a January round‑table with Eagle, the BPC urged the government to “develop national planning direction and oversight for food production … to safeguard the UK’s long‑term food security.”Eagle responded that the government has “announced proposals to reform the planning system to more quickly unlock food and farming infrastructure,” emphasizing that “planning should enable ambition, not stifle it.”Her briefing notes directly linked the proposed changes to industry lobbying, describing planning reform as one of the sector’s “biggest asks” and noting that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working to “find solutions to planning barriers to poultry sheds and other infrastructure necessary for food production.”The draft NPPF includes several measures that could ease approval of new intensive livestock developments: a higher threshold for refusing applications on environmental grounds, reduced scope for local authorities to adopt tougher rules, greater weight given to “domestic food production,” and a new emphasis on “better accommodation for livestock.”The industry says it needs extra space to house chickens because of voluntary commitments to lower stocking density. Critics point out that these welfare commitments are not legally binding and that planning conditions do not guarantee long‑term compliance. Recent withdrawals by restaurant chains from the Better Chicken Commitment underscore the controversy.Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the BPC, said the reforms are needed to accommodate welfare improvements rather than to expand production, noting a voluntary reduction in stocking density from 38 kg to 30 kg per square metre.Griffiths warned that failing to support domestic production could increase imports, and the BPC has called for food production to be classified as “critical national infrastructure.”Prof. Paul Behrens of the University of Oxford countered that the food‑security case for intensive poultry is “illusory” because the sector depends on imported feed and vitamins and is vulnerable to disease outbreaks such as avian flu.Opposition to poultry megafarms is organised, with local residents raising concerns over water pollution, air quality and the climate crisis. The Environment Agency estimates agriculture accounts for roughly 70 % of nitrate and 25‑30 % of phosphorus pollution in UK waterways, and runoff from intensive poultry units contributes to that burden.Last year, Norfolk councillors rejected Cranswick’s plan for a 900,000‑bird chicken farm after the company failed to demonstrate that the development would not cause “significant adverse effects on protected sites.”The BPC has also urged early intervention by the Planning Inspectorate to minimise delays, arguing that centralised oversight would bring objectivity to a system where “naysayers, particularly via social media, have a disproportionate sway in the decision‑making process.”Campaign group Communities Against Factory Farming warned that the proposed regime “risks embedding decades of industrial livestock land use in rural and green‑belt locations without adequate scrutiny,” giving “substantial weight” to the economic benefits of intensification.A government spokesperson rejected claims that the NPPF proposals are driven by lobbying, stating that they have been carefully considered to balance sector support with broader priorities such as food security and environmental protection.

A recent Australian Senate inquiry has concluded that the country's climate change and energy 'information ecosystem' is fuelling conflict in communities, with misinformation and disinformation confusing the public, slowing renewable energy projects, and undermining policy responses to the climate crisis.The inquiry's final report, released on Tuesday evening, recommended that the government do more to make tech companies liable for 'psychosocial harms' spread on their platforms. It also suggested strengthening media literacy through the national curriculum and greater oversight when corporations engage with classrooms.The committee recommended more funding for research into mis- and disinformation, with a funding model to be developed for an independent effort to 'track hidden digital influence systems'. The Australian government should also sign a UN declaration, launched in Brazil in 2025, promising a series of actions aimed at combating climate mis- and dis-information.The use of artificial intelligence by groups looking to block progress on climate change was likely to further threaten the integrity of information the public received, the inquiry heard. The committee's Greens and Labor members endorsed the report, but some members felt it did not go far enough in addressing the issue.The inquiry's findings have significant implications for Australia's renewable energy future and its ability to address the climate crisis. As climate disinformation continues to evolve into a national security challenge, the Australian government must take urgent action to protect the integrity of information and promote a safe climate future.

Progressive lawmakers Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have unveiled a bill to place a moratorium on the construction of AI datacenters in the US. The proposed pause aims to ensure the AI boom benefits workers, protects the environment, and does not harm communities.The bill's introduction comes amid growing concerns about the rapid buildout of AI infrastructure and its impact on energy consumption, electricity bills, and the climate crisis. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez argue that a temporary ban would give the US government time to create strong federal safeguards for AI.“AI and robotics are creating the most sweeping technological revolution in the history of humanity,” Sanders said. “The scale, scope, and speed of that change is unprecedented. Congress is way behind where it should be in understanding the nature of this revolution and its impacts.”The proposal has gained traction, with at least 11 states considering similar policies. Advocacy groups, including Food and Water Watch, have also called for a federal datacenter moratorium, citing concerns about the sector's impacts on electricity bills and the climate crisis.The bill's supporters argue that datacenters' massive energy consumption and water usage have sparked controversy, especially in drought-ridden areas. If current trends continue, datacenters may account for nearly half of all US emissions from the power sector.“We cannot sit back and allow a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs to make decisions that will reshape our economy, our democracy and the future of humanity,” Sanders said. “We need serious public debate and democratic oversight over this enormously consequential issue. The time for action is now.”

In El Salvador, the Oriente Salvaje surf spot, known for its world-class breaks, Las Flores and Punta Mango, is facing significant threats from climate change. The local economy, heavily reliant on surf tourism, sputters to a halt due to intense tropical storms causing flooding and disrupting transport routes.To mitigate these risks, Rodrigo Barraza, a local surfer, teamed up with Save the Waves, an international surfing nonprofit organization. They took out a parametric insurance policy for Oriente Salvaje, which can be used to support recovery from climate change impacts. This policy is triggered when damaging conditions cross a predetermined threshold, such as wind speed or rainfall level.The project aims to provide rapid support for the local community, which includes hotels, restaurants, surf shops, fishers, and drone experts. A survey of 50 local businesses showed that, on average, 70% of their income was dependent on surf tourism. Several informal operators, such as surf photographers, guides, and boat drivers, are especially vulnerable to changeable weather.The payout will be triggered once weather conditions reach an extreme associated with observable income loss. It will be distributed to anywhere between a few hundred and several thousand beneficiaries in the region. The size of the payout is still being determined, as well as which insurer it will be, but Save the Waves hopes to have a pilot running by June.The pioneering program has not been hurdle-free. Angelo Picardo, Save the Waves' local coordinator, says: "El Salvador is a developing country and we don't have an insurance culture – people don't even have health insurance – so there's a lot of work you have to do on the ground to bring people on board."Another challenge has been funding the premiums without burdening local businesses. Save the Waves is in talks with the Salvadorian government, which since 2019 has been channelling millions from loans into a nationwide surf tourism initiative.This type of insurance is bound to spread as more communities and ecosystems experience weather extremes. However, Swenja Surminski, an international expert on innovative insurance for ecosystems, warns that "parametric solutions must be combined with broader resilience and adaptation strategies".