We have compiled some news, comment pieces and announcements that we hope our readers find interesting. In this instalment, there are stories relating to artificial intelligence, free trade and the environment:

 

Artificial Intelligence

Robot bricklayers that can work round the clock coming to Britain (The Telegraph)

Following success in the Netherlands, robot bricklayers will be tested on building sites in the UK as of next month in an attempt to address a shortage of bricklayers. The machines work at a similar rate to a human bricklayer with a predictable output, and two machines can be supervised by one human, who need not be a bricklayer. The contractor using the robots does not believe that the machines will ever fully replace human tradesmen

 

The AI job cuts are accelerating (Financial Times)

Tech companies appear to be cutting jobs. In the past when companies laid off staff, this was considered regrettable; now, in some sectors, it is considered a sign of progress. Artificial intelligence is not the only reason for this but it seems to be making certain roles obsolete, in spite of claims that it is redesigning rather than replacing jobs. What does it mean for traditional career pathways when entire rungs on a career ladder are disappearing? Will university degrees retain their value? And will ‘leaner’ companies necessarily be better? They might be more efficient and perform well financially, but what will become of creativity, customer service and resilience when shocks occur?

 

Climate and the Environment

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has issued an advisory opinion that appears to make environmental protection an issue of human rights protection, which would oblige states to set ambitious targets to protect the environment, regardless of whether they have signed up to treaties for this purpose. Failing to protect the environment adequately, for instance when states subsidise the production of fossil fuels or fail to rein in polluting companies, could constitute an internationally wrongful act, thus rendering nation states liable for environmental harms and potentially subject to claims from countries who consider themselves to have been harmed by climate change

 

The remarkable rise of ‘greenhushing’ (The Economist)

Companies used to be accused of greenwashing. Now they might be described as engaged in greenhushing. Headlines suggest that business has turned against the fight against climate change but surveys indicate that relatively few have actually reduced or abandoned climate targets, while most have either adhered to their own pledges or enhanced them. The difficulty is that where targets have been diluted or abandoned, this has occurred in sectors central to mitigating climate change, while political influences in some countries, particularly the US, render it more difficult for businesses to pursue – and openly announce – climate goals

 

The humbling of green Europe (The Economist)

Has Europe passed the high watermark of climate action? Governments recognised as moderate or centrist now seem to be turning away from climate mitigation. While European public opinion still considers the environment important, other concerns, such as the cost of living and defence have led to the climate falling down the agenda, particularly given the costs associated with net zero targets. A further problem is that while progress so far has been encouraging, it has focused largely on industry and energy generation, in the form of carbon trading markets, for example. Further measures will fall on ordinary businesses and households and may meet with greater resistance. One approach to encouraging people to see climate regulations more positively would be via simplification or relaxation of rules, or providing the means for states to favour businesses that invest in green technology – but lifting red tape and providing governmental support are criticised for potentially allowing more environmental degradation and imposing further costs on consumers. Another approach is to allow flexibility in schemes that exist, so that areas struggling with reform are given more time to meet emissions targets as other sectors decarbonise more quickly

 

The climate needs a politics of the possible (The Economist)

It is one thing to state ambitious climate targets and enshrine them in law but another actually to meet them. How can this be achieved given the costs and the rising scepticism among individuals about whether strict targets and green measures are either in their personal interest or actually achieve any clear benefits? Perhaps the answer is a combination of taxation or charging for pollution (where this is not too unpopular), subsidies for avoiding pollution in the first place (and the removal of subsidies for polluting industries) and measures to ensure that change does not fall too heavily on ordinary people, perhaps by providing the means and infrastructure to make desirable changes possible for them

 

The hidden net zero tax crushing British industry (The Telegraph)

Introduced to disincentivise emissions when the carbon price fell during an industrial slump, the ‘carbon price support’ remains in place over a decade after its introduction and is now over four times higher than when first mandated (now £18 per tonne, up from £4.94 in 2013). Since it applies to gas as well as coal, and as gas power stations set prices for energy markets, this has serious implications for industrial costs and domestic energy bills. Other features of the UK’s carbon trading scheme has led to complaints of upward pressure on costs and an inadequate supply of alternative sources of energy for industrial users, resulting in a lack of competitiveness with overseas businesses that do not face the same charges

 

Trade and Tariffs

American businesses are running out of ways to avoid tariff pain (The Economist)

According to some estimates, American businesses are absorbing up to three-fifths of the costs of recently imposed import tariffs rather than passing them on to customers, but many are looking for ways to lighten the impact, whether by stockpiling goods, adjusting supply chains or shifting manufacturing so as to import from other locations, or seeking rulings on where goods produced across various locations will be judged to have been imported from