Meta named former Trump adviser Dina Powell McCormick to serve as president and vice chair Monday, further cementing the company’s growing ties to Republicans and President Donald Trump’s White House. In addition to a long career on Wall Street, Powell McCormick served as Trump’s deputy national security adviser during his first term. She was also a member of the George W. Bush administration. She first joined Meta’s board last April, part of a broader play by the social media and artificial intelligence giant to hire Republicans following Trump’s election. In a statement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg praised Powell McCormick’s “experience at the highest levels of global finance, combined with her deep relationships around the world, [which] makes her uniquely suited to help Meta manage this next phase of growth.” Rightward trend: Powell McCormick’s time in global finance — she spent 16 years as a partner at Goldman Sachs and was most recently a top executive at banking company BDT & MSD Partners — could be a major asset to Meta as it raises hundreds of billions of dollars to build out data centers and other AI-related infrastructure. But her GOP pedigree and proximity to Trump likely played a significant role in her hiring as well. Since Trump’s election, Meta has worked to curry favor with Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill. The company elevated former GOP official Joel Kaplan to serve as global affairs lead last January, simultaneously tapping Kevin Martin, a former Republican chair of the Federal Communications Commission, as his No. 2. Under pressure from Republicans, last year Meta also rolled back many of its former rules related to content moderation. In 2024, the company apologized to congressional Republicans — specifically Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee — for removing content that contained disinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic. A Meta spokesperson declined to comment when asked whether Powell McCormick’s ties to Trump and Republicans played a role in her hiring. Trump thumbs up: In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump congratulated Powell McCormick and said Zuckerberg made a “great choice.” The president called her “a fantastic, and very talented, person, who served the Trump Administration with strength and distinction!”

Venture capitalist Finn Murphy believes world leaders could soon resort to deflecting sunlight into space if the Earth gets unbearably hot. That’s why he’s invested more than $1 million in Stardust Solutions, a leading solar geoengineering firm that’s developing a system to reduce warming by enveloping the globe in reflective particles. Murphy isn’t rooting for climate catastrophe. But with global temperatures soaring and the political will to limit climate change waning, Stardust “can be worth tens of billions of dollars,” he said. “It would be definitely better if we lost all our money and this wasn’t necessary,” said Murphy, the 33-year-old founder of Nebular, a New York investment fund named for a vast cloud of space dust and gas. Murphy is among a new wave of investors who are putting millions of dollars into emerging companies that aim to limit the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth — while also potentially destabilizing weather patterns, food supplies and global politics. He has a degree in mathematics and mechanical engineering and views global warming not just as a human and political tragedy, but as a technical challenge with profitable solutions. Solar geoengineering investors are generally young, pragmatic and imaginative — and willing to lean into the adventurous side of venture capitalism. They often shrug off the concerns of scientists who argue it’s inherently risky to fund the development of potentially dangerous technologies through wealthy investors who could only profit if the planet-cooling systems are deployed. “If the technology works and the outcomes are positive without really catastrophic downstream impacts, these are trillion-dollar market opportunities,” said Evan Caron, a co-founder of the energy-focused venture firm Montauk Capital. “So it’s a no-brainer for an investor to take a shot at some of these.” More than 50 financial firms, wealthy individuals and government agencies have collectively provided more than $115.8 million to nine startups whose technology could be used to limit sunlight, according to interviews with VCs, tech company founders and analysts, as well as private investment data analyzed by POLITICO’s E&E News. That pool of funders includes Silicon Valley’s Sequoia Capital, one of the world’s largest venture capital firms, and four other investment groups that have more than $1 billion of assets under management. Of the total amount invested in the geoengineering sector, $75 million went to Stardust, or nearly 65 percent. The U.S.-Israeli startup is developing reflective particles and the means to spray and monitor them in the stratosphere, some 11 miles above the planet’s surface. At least three other climate-intervention companies have also raked in at least $5 million. The cash infusion is a bet on planet-cooling technologies that many political leaders, investors and environmentalists still consider taboo. In addition to having unknown side effects, solar geoengineering could expose the planet to what scientists call “termination shock,” a scenario in which global temperatures soar if the cooling technologies fail or are suddenly abandoned. Still, the funding surge for geoengineering companies pales in comparison to the billions of dollars being put toward artificial intelligence. OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, has raised $62.5 billion in 2025 alone, according to investment data compiled by PitchBook. The investment pool for solar geoengineering startups is relatively shallow in part because governments haven’t determined how they would regulate the technology — something Stardust is lobbying to change. As a result, the emerging sector is seen as too speculative for most venture capital firms, according to Kim Zou, the CEO of Sightline Climate, a market intelligence firm. VCs mostly work on behalf of wealthy individuals, as well as pension funds, university endowments and other institutional investors. “It’s still quite a niche set of investors that are even thinking about or looking at the geoengineering space,” Zou said. “The climate tech and energy tech investors we speak to still don’t really see there being an investable opportunity there, primarily because there’s no commercial market for it today.” AEROSOLS IN THE STRATOSPHERE Stardust and its investors are banking on signing contracts with one or more governments that could deploy its solar geoengineering system as soon as the end of the decade. Those investors include Lowercarbon Capital, a climate-focused firm co-founded by billionaire VC Chris Sacca, and Exor, the holding company of an Italian industrial dynasty and perhaps the most mainstream investment group to back a sunlight reflection startup. Even Stardust’s supporters acknowledge that the company is far from a sure bet. “It’s unique in that there is not currently demand for this solution,” said Murphy, whose firm is also supporting out-there startups seeking to build robots and data centers in space. “You have to go and create the product in order to potentially facilitate the demand.” Lowercarbon partner Ryan Orbuch said the firm would see a return on its Stardust investment only “in the context of an actual customer who can actually back many years of stable, safe deployment.” Exor, another Stardust investor, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Other startups are trying to develop commercial markets for solar geoengineering. Make Sunsets, a company funded by billionaire VC Tim Draper, releases sulfate-filled weather balloons that pop when they reach the stratosphere. It sells cooling credits to individuals and corporations based on the theory that the sulfates can reliably reduce warming. There are questions, however, about the science and economics underpinning the credit system of Make Sunsets, according to the investment bank Jeffries. “A cooling credit market is unlikely to be viable,” the bank said in a May 2024 note to clients. That’s because the temperature reductions produced by sulfate aerosols vary by altitude, location and season, the note explained. And the warming impacts of carbon dioxide emissions last decades — much longer than any cooling that would be created from a balloon’s worth of sulfate. Make Sunsets didn’t respond to a request for comment. The company has previously attracted the attention of regulators in the U.S. and Mexico, who have claimed it began operating without the necessary government approvals. Draper Associates says on its website that it’s “shaping a future where the impossible becomes everyday reality.” The firm has previously backed successful consumer tech firms like Tesla, Skype and Hotmail. “It is getting hotter in the Summer everywhere,” Tim Draper said in an email. “We should be encouraging every solution. I love this team, and the science works.” THE NEXT FRONTIER One startup is pursuing space-based solar geoengineering. EarthGuard is attempting to build a series of large sunlight deflectors that would be positioned between the sun and the planet, some 932,000 miles from the Earth. The company did not respond to emailed questions. Other space companies are considering geoengineering as a side project. That includes Gama, a French startup that’s designing massive solar sails that could be used for deep space travel or as a planetary sunshade, and Ethos Space, a Los Angeles company with plans to industrialize the moon. Both companies are part of an informal research network established by the Planetary Sunshade Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for the development of a trillion-dollar parasol for the globe. The network mainly brings together collaborators on the sidelines of space industry conferences, according to Gama CEO Andrew Nutter. “We’re willing to contribute something if we realize it’s genuinely necessary and it’s a better solution than other solutions” to the climate challenge, Nutter said of the space shade concept. “But our business model does not depend on it. If you have dollar signs hanging next to something, that can bias your decisions on what’s best for the planet.” Nutter said Gama has raised about $5 million since he co-founded the company in 2020. Its investors include Possible Ventures, a German VC firm that’s also financing a nuclear fusion startup and says on its website that the firm is “relentlessly optimistic — choosing to focus on the possibilities rather than obsess over the risks.” Possible Ventures did not respond to a request for comment. Sequoia-backed Reflect Orbital is another space startup that’s exploring solar geoengineering as a potential moneymaker. The company based near Los Angeles is developing a network of satellite mirrors that would direct sunlight down to the Earth at night for lighting industrial sites or, eventually, producing solar energy. Its space mirrors, if oriented differently, could also be used for limiting the amount of sun rays that reach the planet. “It’s not so much a technological limitation as much as what has the highest, best impact. It’s more of a business decision,” said Ally Stone, Reflect Orbital’s chief strategy officer. “It’s a matter of looking at each satellite as an opportunity and whether, when it’s over a specific geography, that makes more sense to reflect sunlight towards or away from the Earth.” Reflect Orbital has raised nearly $28.7 million from investors including Lux Capital, a firm that touts its efforts to “turn sci-fi into sci-fact” and has invested in the autonomous defense systems companies Anduril and Saildrone.” Sequoia and Lux didn’t respond to requests for comment. The startup hopes to send its first satellite into space next summer, according to Stone. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose aerospace company already has an estimated fleet of more than 8,800 internet satellites in orbit, has also suggested using the circling network to limit sunlight. “A large solar-powered AI satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by making tiny adjustments in how much solar energy reached Earth,” Musk wrote on X last month. Neither he nor SpaceX responded to an emailed request for comment. DON’T CALL IT GEOENGINEERING Other sunlight-reflecting startups are entering the market — even if they’d rather not be seen as solar geoengineering companies. Arctic Reflections is a two-year-old company that wants to reduce global warming by increasing Arctic sea ice, which doesn’t absorb as much heat as open water. The Dutch startup hasn’t yet pursued outside investors. “We see this not necessarily as geo-engineering, but rather as climate adaptation,” CEO Fonger Ypma said in an email. “Just like in reforestation projects, people help nature in growing trees, our idea is that we would help nature in growing ice.” The main funder of Arctic Reflections is the British government’s independent Advanced Research and Invention Agency. In May, ARIA awarded $4.41 million to the company — more than four times what it had raised to that point. Another startup backed by ARIA is Voltitude, which is developing micro balloons to monitor geoengineering from the stratosphere. The U.K.-based company didn’t respond to a request for comment. Altogether, the British agency is supporting 22 geoengineering projects, only a handful of which involve startups. “ARIA is only funding fundamental research through this programme, and has not taken an equity stake in any geoengineering companies,” said Mark Symes, a program director at the agency. It also requires that all research it supports “must be published, including those that rule out approaches by showing they are unsafe or unworkable.” Sunscreen is a new startup that is trying to limit sunlight in localized areas. It was founded earlier this year by Stanford University graduate student Solomon Kim. “We are pioneering the use of targeted, precision interventions to mitigate the destructive impacts of heatwave on critical United States infrastructure,” Kim said in an email. But he was emphatic that “we are not geoengineering” since the cooling impacts it’s pursuing are not large scale. Kim declined to say how much had been raised by Sunscreen and from what sources. As climate change and its impacts continue to worsen, Zou of Sightline Climate expects more investors to consider solar geoengineering startups, including deep-pocketed firms and corporations interested in the technology. Without their help, the startups might not be able to develop their planet-cooling systems. “People are feeling like, well wait a second, our backs are kind of starting to get against the wall. Time is ticking, we’re not really making a ton of progress” on decarbonization, she said. “So I do think there’s a lot more questions getting asked right now in the climate tech and venture community around understanding it,” Zou said of solar geoengineering. “Some of these companies and startups and venture deals are also starting to bring more light into the space.” Karl Mathiesen contributed reporting.

Europe’s security does not depend solely on our physical borders and their defense. It rests on something far less visible, and far more sensitive: the digital networks that keep our societies, economies and democracies functioning every second of the day. > Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a > halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. A recent study by Copenhagen Economics confirms that telecom operators have become the first line of defense in Europe’s security architecture. Their networks power essential services ranging from emergency communications and cross-border healthcare to energy systems, financial markets, transport and, increasingly, Europe’s defense capabilities. Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. This reality forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Europe cannot build credible defense capabilities on top of an economically strained, structurally fragmented telecom sector. Yet this is precisely the risk today. A threat landscape outpacing Europe’s defenses The challenges facing Europe are evolving faster than our political and regulatory systems can respond. In 2023 alone, ENISA recorded 188 major incidents, causing 1.7 billion lost user-hours, the equivalent of taking entire cities offline. While operators have strengthened their systems and outage times fell by more than half in 2024 compared with the previous year, despite a growing number of incidents, the direction of travel remains clear: cyberattacks are more sophisticated, supply chains more vulnerable and climate-related physical disruptions more frequent. Hybrid threats increasingly target civilian digital infrastructure as a way to weaken states. Telecom networks, once considered as technical utilities, have become a strategic asset essential to Europe’s stability. > Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, > pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO > interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of > sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Our allies recognize this. NATO recently encouraged members to spend up to 1.5 percent of their GDP on protecting critical infrastructure. Secretary General Mark Rutte also urged investment in cyber defense, AI, and cloud technologies, highlighting the military benefits of cloud scalability and edge computing – all of which rely on high-quality, resilient networks. This is a clear political signal that telecom security is not merely an operational matter but a geopolitical priority. The link between telecoms and defense is deeper than many realize. As also explained in the recent Arel report, Much More than a Network, modern defense capabilities rely largely on civilian telecom networks. Strong fiber backbones, advanced 5G and future 6G systems, resilient cloud and edge computing, satellite connectivity, and data centers form the nervous system of military logistics, intelligence and surveillance. Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Fragmentation has become one of Europe’s greatest strategic vulnerabilities. The reform Europe needs: An investment boost for digital networks At the same time, Europe expects networks to become more resilient, more redundant, less dependent on foreign technology and more capable of supporting defense-grade applications. Security and resilience are not side tasks for telecom operators, they are baked into everything they do. From procurement and infrastructure design to daily operations, operators treat these efforts as core principles shaping how networks are built, run and protected. Therefore, as the Copenhagen Economics study shows, the level of protection Europe now requires will demand substantial additional capital. > It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to > emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. This is the right ambition, but the economic model underpinning the sector does not match these expectations. Due to fragmentation and over-regulation, Europe’s telecom market invests less per capita than global peers, generates roughly half the return on capital of operators in the United States and faces rising costs linked to expanding security obligations. It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. A shift in policy priorities is therefore essential. Europe must place investment in security and resilience at the center of its political agenda. Policy must allow this reality to be reflected in merger assessments, reduce overlapping security rules and provide public support where the public interest exceeds commercial considerations. This is not state aid; it is strategic social responsibility. Completing the single market for telecommunications is central to this agenda. A fragmented market cannot produce the secure, interoperable, large-scale solutions required for modern defense. The Digital Networks Act must simplify and harmonize rules across the EU, supported by a streamlined governance that distinguishes between domestic matters and cross-border strategic issues. Spectrum policy must also move beyond national silos, allowing Europe to avoid conflicts with NATO over key bands and enabling coherent next-generation deployments. Telecom policy nowadays is also defense policy. When we measure investment gaps in digital network deployment, we still tend to measure simple access to 5G and fiber. However, we should start considering that — if security, resilience and defense-readiness are to be taken into account — the investment gap is much higher that the €200 billion already estimated by the European Commission. Europe’s strategic choice The momentum for stronger European defense is real — but momentum fades if it is not seized. If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to support advanced defense applications. In that scenario, Europe’s democratic resilience would erode in parallel with its economic competitiveness, leaving the continent more exposed to geopolitical pressure and technological dependency. > If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it > risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic > underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to > support advanced defense applications. Europe still has time to change course and put telecoms at the center of its agenda — not as a technical afterthought, but as a core pillar of its defense strategy. The time for incremental steps has passed. Europe must choose to build the network foundations of its security now or accept that its strategic ambitions will remain permanently out of reach. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Connect Europe AISBL * The ultimate controlling entity is Connect Europe AISBL * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU digital, telecom and industrial policy, including initiatives such as the Digital Networks Act, Digital Omnibus, and connectivity, cybersecurity, and defence frameworks aimed at strengthening Europe’s digital competitiveness. More information here.

LONDON — The U.K. government is going all-out to get Brits putting their money in stocks and shares. The timing could definitely be better. Lead policymakers and City of London analysts are increasingly warning of an artificial intelligence-fueled correction in equities just as the U.K.’s top finance minister prepares a major new policy to push Britain’s savers into the stock market. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has made upping retail participation in stocks and shares a high priority, launching a campaign earlier this year to unite financial firms in an advertising blitz extolling the benefits of investing. At next month’s budget, she’s expected to push changes to the tax system that would encourage investors to swap their steady, tax-free cash savings products for a stocks and shares ISA. With AI stocks soaring, it’s caused some raised eyebrows in the City. AI stocks in the U.S. account for roughly 44 percent of the S&P 500 market capitalization, and Nvidia just became the first company in history to become worth $5 trillion. The meteoric rise in has led some experts to warn there’s only one way out: The bubble will burst. “It would, unfortunately, be poetic timing if a major correction arrives just as the government is trying to get more people into investing,” said Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG. ATLANTIC INFLUENCE This week, City broker Panmure Liberum found that 38 percent of the U.S. stock market’s value is based in a “speculative component” that AI companies will continue to build out data centers and spend billions more on chips — by no means a sure bet. “While this capital spending could deliver substantial productivity gains that might eventually spread to the broader market, there is still no clear evidence that this is happening and is difficult to forecast the size of an eventual impact,” said Panmure analyst Susana Cruz in a research note. The “Magnificent Seven” group of tech giant composed around 20 percent of the S&P 500 at the end of 2022, but now make up more than a third of it, having tripled in size over just three years. The American index’s price-to-book ratio (meaning a company’s market cap compared to assets and liabilities) is at an all-time high, with 19 of the 20 valuation metrics tracked by Bank of America more expensive than the historical average. Despite the vast valuations, an infamous MIT study published earlier this year found that 95 percent of companies using generative AI were getting zero return. In early October, the Bank of England’s committee which monitors risks to financial stability warned of a “sudden correction” in markets, saying that “equity valuations appear stretched” as valuation metrics reached levels comparable to the peak of the dotcom bubble that unfolded in the early millennium, when the Nasdaq fell 77 percent from its peak, wiping trillions of the stock market. It took 15 years for the index to recover. The U.K. central bank’s warning came a month after global body, the Bank for International Settlements, issued a similar caution. Kristalina Georgieva, head of the International Monetary Fund, has also drawn comparisons with the dotcom bubble. Even Jamie Dimon, chief executive of U.S. banking giant JP Morgan, has said he’s seriously worried about a market correction. Over most periods investment beats cash, as long as individuals are willing to lock their money away for several years. Savers could have doubled their money over the last decade by putting their cash in the stock market rather than keeping it in a savings account, according to Schroders. Nvidia is up 13 percent this month alone — rather than an index fund which tracks hundreds of stocks, they stand to lose a lot of money if things go sour. | Jung Yeon-Je/Getty Images “No one can time the market, definitely not a bulky institution like the government,” Oliver Tipping, analyst at investment bank Peel Hunt, said. “Big picture, the government is right to try to stimulate more retail investment.” But if an individual decides to put their hard-earned savings into stocks they perceive as doing particularly well — Nvidia, for example, is up 13 percent this month alone — rather than an index fund which tracks hundreds of stocks, they stand to lose a lot of money if things go sour. “If you think about your average Joe, they’re not going to go into a safe index fund, they’ll put all of their money in Nvidia or Facebook and could get in at the wrong time,” one financial analyst, granted anonymity to speak freely, said.  Yet even an index fund, like a global equities tracker, is made up of close to 20 percent of the “Magnificent Seven” companies, due to the massive size of the American stock market compared to the rest of the world. While these funds have suffered significant drops in the past — U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat of tariffs in April caused a drop of 10 percent in a week — they have then recovered over a period of months or years. That’s good news for investors willing to wait for the market to correct any possible downturn — but if retail investors panic and withdraw their funds at the first sign of a loss, they could end up with less money than they put in, possibly wiping out emergency savings. “There is clearly a risk here that government is pushing people to invest when maybe they don’t have enough of a cash buffer in order to do that, that you’re going to be setting up problems for the long term, and it’ll be interesting to see who’s on the hook for paying that compensation,” said Debbie Enver, head of external affairs at the Building Societies Association. ONCE BITTEN, TWICE SHY City analysts also express concern that investors entering the stock market for the first time could be forever turned off from shifting their cash over to equities if an immediate correction is nigh. Only 8 percent of wealth held by U.K. adults is in stocks and funds, four times lower than in the U.S., according to data from asset manager Aberdeen. “There is no doubt that the government would find it much harder to drive retail investment in a period of financial turbulence,” added Chris Rudden, head of investment consultants at Moneyfarm. “Appetite to invest is linked to strong recent market performance. If there was to be a bubble that bursts in the coming few months, then it could make their job impossible.” IG’s Beauchamp argued that the government would need to pursue a broader education plan “to help people through the inevitable pullback” and prevent them from avoiding the stock market permanently. “How you do that without scaring people witless is a Herculean task,” he added. Laith Khalaf, head of investment analysis at AJ Bell, suggested investment platforms could encourage regular incremental savings in the stock market, known as dollar cost averaging, rather than throwing one lump sum in, which he said “mitigates the risk of a big market downdraft.” One solution that appears to be under consideration by Reeves as part of the autumn budget is to introduce a minimum U.K. stock shareholding in ISAs — which she could argue would protect British savers from a U.S. downturn and pump more money into local companies. This too is not without risk. The FTSE 100 derives nearly 30 percent of its revenue from the U.S., according to the London Stock Exchange, and U.K. markets are generally incredibly sensitive to macroeconomic shifts across the Atlantic. The FTSE 100 derives nearly 30 percent of its revenue from the U.S., according to the London Stock Exchange. | Jeff Moore/Getty Images Meanwhile, if an AI-induced stock bubble isn’t enough cause for concern, worries of trouble in the private credit sector exploded this month after the collapse of sub-prime auto lender Tricolor and car parts supplier First Brands left some U.S. banks with significant losses, causing a spillover onto public markets. BoE governor Bailey recently drew similarities between risks in the asset class and the 2008 global financial crisis, saying it was an “open question” if the event was “a canary in the coal mine” for a market meltdown. If one domino falls, they all could — and that would leave Britain’s chancellor in a real bind.

AI is intensifying the strategic rivalry between the European Union and the United States, reshaping models of industrial policy and regulatory sovereignty. Amid a flurry of investment announcements, the exposure of security vulnerabilities and the contest over global standards, one critical factor remains largely in the shadows — seldom acknowledged, scarcely quantified and rarely debated: its environmental footprint. The environmental blind spot of a strategic technology The silence surrounding the impact of AI is surprising. A study carried out by Sopra Steria and Opsci.ai analyzing over 3 million posts about AI on social media reveals that its environmental impact accounts for less than 1 percent of the global conversation.1 Worse still, among the 100 most influential AI personalities,2 ecological concerns are only eighth on the list of subjects they discuss most, far behind technological and economic issues. > A study carried out by Sopra Steria and Opsci.ai analyzing over 3 million > posts about AI on social media reveals that its environmental impact accounts > for less than 1 percent of the global conversation AI relies on energy-intensive infrastructure that consumes resources and water, the footprint of which remains largely underestimated, poorly measured and therefore little considered in industrial and political trade-offs. This misalignment can also be explained by the trajectory of the sector itself: driven by the rise of AI, the digital sector is one of the few areas whose environmental impact is continuing to grow, contrary to the climate objectives set out in the Paris Agreement. While American players are already crushing the AI market, technological dependence must not be compounded by a setback on Europe’s carbon trajectory. This omission undermines the credibility of any European industrial strategy built on AI. To serve as genuine drivers of transformation, the leading AI companies must bring full transparency to their environmental trajectory — one they are progressively shaping for Europe. © Sopra Steria Measuring for action: The need for transparency and rigor We must not rush to condemn AI, but we must insist on setting the conditions for its long-term sustainability. This means measuring its impact objectively and transparently, equipping stakeholders with the tools for informed debate, and guiding decision-makers in their technological choices. Recent research indicates that the environmental footprint of a given model can vary significantly depending on where it is assessed, the energy mix of the countries hosting the data centers,3 the duration of the training, the architecture employed and the extent to which low-carbon energy sources are used. Breaking through the methodological vagueness means providing developers, purchasers and decision-makers with common frames of reference, impact simulators, libraries of low-carbon models and low-carbon computing infrastructures. Numerous levers for action and choice exist, provided we have the necessary data and tools. This requirement is not a regulatory whim but a strategic steering tool. Sustainability must be given as much weight as performance or security in industrial and economic trade-offs, because it determines the very viability of Europe’s strategic autonomy. At a time when free international trade faces headwinds, and as the second phase of the AI Act — in force since August 2025 — continues to overlook environmental sustainability, transparency on environmental impact must become a prerequisite for access to European markets, financing and large-scale deployment. Making sustainability a central pillar of European competitiveness Europe has an opportunity to seize. It has a robust standards base that is a powerful lever for competitiveness and responsible innovation, provided that it is supported by targeted investment, shared standards and an industrial strategy aligned with our climate objectives. But Europe can rely on something even more decisive: its people. We have world-class researchers, visionary entrepreneurs, and thriving companies that embody the best of technological and industrial excellence. The recent strategic partnership between ASML, a key supplier to the world’s semiconductor industry, and Mistral, an AI start-up, illustrates Europe’s capacity to connect its industrial and digital strengths to shape a sovereign and sustainable future4. It would be dangerous to suggest that Europe’s technological strength could be built on deferred ecology. What is tolerated as a gray area today will be a competitive handicap tomorrow. Customers, investors and citizens will increasingly demand transparency. The emergence of responsible AI does not mean making it perfect, but making it readable, controllable and adjustable. In a technological landscape dominated by two superpowers that have hitherto favored efficiency and technological competitiveness to the detriment of ethical safeguards, Europe can chart a singular course. It has the means to assert itself by defending responsible AI, at the service of the common good and in line with its fundamental values: the rule of law, individual freedom, social justice and respect for the environment. This orientation is not a brake on innovation, but on the contrary a lever for differentiation, capable of inspiring confidence in a digital ecosystem that is often perceived as opaque or threatening. By betting on ethical, explainable and sustainable AI, Europe would not be giving up global competition, but it would be redefining the rules of the game. More than ever, it must give priority to clarity, stringency and rigor. Only then will AI cease to be a technological equation to be solved and become a genuine project at the service of our society, consistent with our democratic and ecological imperatives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AI & environment: breaking through the information fog – Sopra Steria 2. “The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024”, Time Magazine 3. ADEME – Arcep study on the environmental footprint of digital technology in 2020, 2030 and 2025 4. https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-asml-invests-in-french-mistral-in-huge-european-ai-team-up/

LONDON — At a couple of pages long, the technology pact the U.S. and the U.K. will sign this week when President Donald Trump lands in London will be easy to miss amid the circus of a state visit. But what will be impossible to ignore is the group of technology heavyweights joining Trump’s entourage. Nvidia boss Jensen Huang, who is hosting a party in London’s King’s Cross on Thursday night, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Blackstone chief executive Stephen Schwarzman are among those accompanying the U.S. president. Nvidia is due to announce an investment in Britain’s biggest data center, planned for Blyth in northeast England, according to three people familiar with the plans. A subsidiary of Blackstone is leading the project and OpenAI is also involved. It is expected to be billed as a British “Stargate,” similar to a Norwegian version the companies announced in July. The tech pact Trump will agree with Prime Minister Keir Starmer has paved the way for some of that investment, the U.K. embassy in Washington believes. The document focuses on building partnerships — through R&D, procurement and skills — in AI, quantum and space, according to two people briefed on it. A U.K. government spokesperson claimed the pact would “change the lives” of Brits and Americans, while U.K. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said: “Boosting our tech ties with the U.S. will help us deliver the change people here at home expect and deserve.” A separate agreement on nuclear energy will also come during the state visit, fast-tracking reactor design checks between the two countries. It includes plans to build data centers powered by small modular reactors at the former coal power station in Cottam, Nottinghamshire. MADE IN THE USA  Britain pitched the pact to Washington as a way for Western democracies to beat China in the technology race and set a “gold standard” in digital rulemaking. Yet while the country’s AI strategy talks about sovereignty, with only £2 billion of public money set aside to deliver it, Britain is heavily reliant on U.S. investments and technology to make it happen. Gaia Marcus, director of the Ada Lovelace Institute think tank, warned of increased U.K. reliance on America. “The public deserves to understand who really benefits from these partnerships and what the return will be for taxpayers in years to come,” she said. “We mustn’t just focus on what the figures look like today, if the cost is technological lock-in tomorrow, limiting our ability to seek alternatives in the future.”  Nvidia is due to announce an investment in Britain’s biggest data center, planned for Blyth in northeast England, according to three people familiar with the plans. | Ina Fassbender/Getty Images Chi Onwurah, chair of the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, said: “Whilst I’m pleased that the U.K. is an attractive place for U.S. investment, the U.K. needs to take decisions that are in its long-term strategic interest; true technology sovereignty cannot mean being dependent on one investor or country.” But Keegan McBride, senior policy advisor in emerging technology and geopolitics at the Tony Blair Institute, said the U.K. has little choice as only the U.S. or China were able to provide it with the AI infrastructure it needed to compete. “For the U.K. and for many other countries that want to access frontier AI capabilities, the United States represents the best option,” he said.  The Trump administration, meanwhile, wants to sell American AI “packages” to its allies, pitching them as a form of AI sovereignity. “We are committed to finding a way to enable America’s private companies to meet your national technological needs,” White House tech policy chief Michael Kratsios told APEC members at a conference in South Korea this August.  Another prize for U.S. tech companies is large government contracts. Britain’s defense department announced a £400 million deal with Google Cloud last week, while Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google Cloud signed separate partnership agreements with the U.K. government earlier this year.   JUST DON’T MENTION RULES  The U.S.-U.K. tech pact is expected to avoid the thornier issue of online regulation, but it is something the White House has pressured the U.K. government on throughout trade negotiations. Starmer also faces domestic pressure from Nigel Farage, leader of the populist and poll-topping Reform UK party, who compared Britain’s free speech laws to North Korea in the U.S. Congress this month.  Starmer has repeatedly defended Britain’s Online Safety Act, including in front of Trump at his Scottish Turnberry resort in August, while Trump has also attacked the Digital Services Tax and competition regulations.  McBride said: “There is a growing number of regulatory concerns on the side of the United States, particularly regarding censorship and free speech, that could disrupt tech relations between the two countries.”    One person briefed on the agenda for Trump’s visit said: “There are three regulatory pieces that the U.S. is really concerned about in Europe right now. They’re going to be looking … to see some sort of support from the U.K.”  They listed the Digital Services Tax, which the government has repeatedly ruled out ditching, the EU’s Digital Markets Act, and the CSDD (an EU supply chain disclosure reporting standard). “There are people inside the White House that are very set on expanding the U.S.-U.K. relationship as a means to counterbalance the EU, and I think that’s a big part of this trip.” 

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) has launched a fresh inquiry into TikTok’s transfers of personal data to Chinese servers, it said Thursday, following on from its investigation that led to a €530 million fine against the company in April. The Irish regulator in April was informed by TikTok of an issue that meant a limited amount of EU user data had been stored on servers in China, an issue it said it discovered in February. The discovery contradicted the firm’s long-held position that personal data of EU users was only accessed remotely by the platform’s staff in China. But it came only just before the investigation concluded. Because of this, the DPC did not investigate it fully. The regulator in April fined TikTok for not sufficiently protecting EU personal data from Chinese state surveillance. The DPC earlier this year expressed “deep concern” that TikTok submitted “inaccurate information to the inquiry.” In a statement on Thursday, it said it had decided to open a new inquiry into the personal data transfers to servers in China after consulting with other data protection authorities in Europe. The Irish regulator said the inquiry will focus on whether TikTok has complied with its obligations under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, including articles relating to accountability, transparency, cooperation with supervisory authorities and compliance with rules around data transfers outside of the EU. TikTok was notified earlier this week about the Irish DPC’s decision to launch a fresh inquiry. The company has been contacted for comment.

The energy landscape is always evolving, and another challenge is rapidly coming into view: data. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing and machine learning is driving unprecedented demand for electricity. This trend is only set to accelerate as the UK seeks to establish itself as a global leader in AI. The UK government has rightly committed to being an ‘AI maker, not taker’. But that ambition comes with consequences. According to the National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios 2024, data centers could become one of the UK’s fastest-growing sources of demand by the 2030s. AI data centers are used to train the most advanced AI, including frontier models such as ChatGPT, and require vast amounts of energy due to their continuous utilization. We cannot meet this surge in demand simply by layering data center load on top of an already stretched energy system. COORDINATION WILL BE CRITICAL Last month, a report from Aurora Energy Research highlighted that an uncoordinated approach to power sourcing could see power sector emissions increasing by 14 percent, which would directly undermine the UK’s decarbonization goals and drive up wholesale electricity prices. > Without change, we risk slowing down both the deployment of AI infrastructure > and our energy transition. Instead, we need a coordinated way to unlock the potential of the AI sector. The current approach, where most data centers cluster around areas like London and the Thames Valley, driven by proximity to demand, is unsustainable. These regions are often far from large-scale sources of generation and already face grid constraints such as network connection bottlenecks. Different thinking is viable for data centers geared toward AI workloads, which are less sensitive to latency — the delay of data transfer — and therefore do not need to be sited close to major cities. Without change, we risk slowing down both the deployment of AI infrastructure and our energy transition. To help mitigate this risk, we should align our energy and digital strategies more closely. That starts with a national framework to strategically site new data centers in areas with available grid capacity, preferably close to power generation sources. Drax Power Station could be one of those locations. via Drax CO-LOCATING DATA CENTRES AND POWER GENERATION In 2024 Drax Power Station was the UK’s single largest source of renewable power by output. Our site in Selby, North Yorkshire, provides approximately 2.6 GW of dispatchable power capacity, enough power for five million homes. Unlike intermittent renewables, Drax generates power whether or not the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. But the site’s potential reaches beyond what it delivers today. We already benefit from planning consents, which — alongside the right policy support and regulatory framework — could allow us to transform Drax into the world’s largest engineered carbon removals facility by installing bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) on two of our generating units. BECCS is unique. It is the only technology that can simultaneously generate renewable power and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And, significantly, co-locating a data center with the power station could help enable the delivery of this world leading technology. > Building data centers next to power stations brings multiple advantages. It > enhances system resilience and reduces the risk of plant curtailment. It > minimizes energy lost in transmission, something that becomes more pronounced > the further electricity has to travel. Large power stations like Drax Power Station were designed to support industrial-scale generation. They have substantial grid connections, large surrounding estates and access to cooling water. These attributes make Drax Power Station uniquely suited for the possibility of hosting a hyperscale data center. Building data centers next to power stations brings multiple advantages. It enhances system resilience and reduces the risk of plant curtailment. It minimizes energy lost in transmission, something that becomes more pronounced the further electricity has to travel. It also supports the connection of new energy capacity by relieving congestion on the grid queue. Unlocking this potential, however, will require a rethink of current regulations. SEIZING THE OPPORTUNITY At present, power stations are restricted from supplying electricity simultaneously to both the grid and a private off-taker such as a data center. These rules were written for a different era, one that did not anticipate intense energy consumers such as AI clusters emerging as a major player in the energy ecosystem. By unpicking these constraints, we can free up untapped capacity, provide flexible solutions for energy security and support the digital infrastructure needed to drive economic growth. The government’s recent announcement of AI Growth Zones is a welcome step. If designed properly, this initiative could be the catalyst for a strategic rollout of AI infrastructure across the UK. Rather than clustering growth in already congested urban areas, Growth Zones can enable us to locate data centers where power is plentiful, where local communities stand to benefit from investment and where the grid can accommodate growth. This is about more than just plugging in servers. It’s about creating a coherent and forward-looking strategy that links where we generate power to where we use it — and recognizes that AI and energy are now inextricably linked. Subject to clear government policy support and milestones, combining BECCS with a large-scale data center at Drax Power Station could align with this industrial strategy. Together, these developments could create the option for a globally unique proposition: a carbon negative data center — delivering world-leading innovation for the UK and directly countering the perspective that AI growth will mean more carbon emissions.   These projects could protect and create thousands of high-quality jobs in a region that has historically powered the UK but that now faces the risk of deindustrialization as a result of declining heavy industry. A joined-up plan for energy and digital growth can offer lasting economic resilience to communities that need it the most. > It’s time to think smarter about how we build, power and place the critical > infrastructure of the 21st century. At Drax, we are ready to be part of that future. We are already a leading renewable energy generator in the UK and we have the infrastructure and ambition to implement a cutting-edge data center solution at Drax Power Station, helping the country secure its place as a digital leader while keeping the lights on. It’s time to think smarter about how we build, power and place the critical infrastructure of the 21st century. We must ensure new data capacity is integrated in ways that enhance grid stability without compromising the transition to clean energy or negatively affecting the needs and rights of local communities. With the right strategy, the UK doesn’t have to choose between energy security and digital growth. We can achieve both.

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump’s return to the White House is forcing Europe to reckon with a major digital vulnerability: The U.S. holds a kill switch over its internet. As the U.S. administration raises the stakes in a geopolitical poker game that began when Trump started his trade war, Europeans are waking up to the fact that years of over-reliance on a handful of U.S. tech giants have given Washington a winning hand. The fatal vulnerability is Europe’s near-total dependency on U.S. cloud providers. Cloud computing is the lifeblood of the internet, powering everything from the emails we send and videos we stream to industrial data processing and government communications. Just three American behemoths — Amazon, Microsoft, and Google — hold more than two-thirds of the regional market, putting Europe’s online existence in the hands of firms cozying up to the U.S. president to fend off looming regulations and fines. Sovereignty hawks in Europe have long voiced concerns that cloud reliance means U.S. agencies can snoop on sensitive data of Europeans stored on American-owned servers in any location, thanks to U.S. laws.  Now, in a political cycle that has seen the U.S. president flip laws on a dime and the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor lose access to his Microsoft email after being sanctioned by Washington (following arrest warrants for top Israeli officials), there are genuine fears the U.S. could weaponize its tech dominance for leverage abroad. “Trump really hates Europe. He thinks the whole purpose of the EU is to ‘screw‘ America,” said Zach Meyers, director of research at the CERRE think tank in Brussels. “The idea that he might order a kill switch or do something else that would severely damage economic interests isn’t quite as implausible as it might have sounded six months ago.” Alexander Windbichler, the CEO of Austrian cloud firm Anexia, said he wished the “IT guys” like him had spoken up earlier about the “unhealthy dependency,” arguing that the European cloud industry has for too long avoided lobbying and politics in favor of focusing on technological competitiveness. Would Trump pull the plug on cloud services in Europe? “I don’t know. But I never expected that the U.S. would be threatening to take Greenland away,” Windbichler said. “It’s crazier than shutting down the cloud.” HOW ‘WHAT IF’ BECAME REALITY Warnings began a couple of months after Trump moved back into the White House.  “It is no longer reasonable to assume that we can totally rely on our American partner. There’s a serious risk that all of our data is used by the U.S. administration or infrastructure [is] made inaccessible by other countries,” Matthias Ecke, a German social-democrat lawmaker in the European Parliament, told an event in March. “The risk of a shutdown is the new paradigm,” the boss of French champion OVHcloud, Benjamin Revcolevschi, told the same event. “Cloud is like a tap of water. What if at some moment the tap is closed?” The technology equivalent of turning off the tap would be cloud companies being ordered by the U.S. administration to stop services in Europe. Cloud computing works by giving businesses virtual access to data storage and processing power, massively widening capabilities thanks to their vast networks of physical data centers around the world.  And while a breakdown in service remains an extreme scenario, U.S. tech giants no longer dismiss it as a possibility. Microsoft in April said the company would add a binding clause to its contracts with European governments to keep them online, and fight any suspension orders in court. While President Brad Smith claimed the risk of the U.S. administration ordering American tech firms to stop operations in the EU was “exceedingly unlikely,” he admitted this was “a real concern of people across Europe.” Microsoft also outlined fresh features this month in a bid to calm European nerves. Amazon announced a new governance structure for its so-called “sovereign offer” in Europe to ensure “independent and continuous operations” and alleviate concerns. The company reportedly prepared staff to address questions from customers about international bans, instructing them to say that “in the theoretical case that such sanctions ever came to pass, [Amazon’s cloud unit] would do everything practically possible to provide continuity of service.” Several experts are asking what power U.S. companies would have to resist the White House. “If that political dimension turns hostile, how credible is it that companies with the best intentions can challenge their president?” Cristina Caffarra, a tech and competition economist and honorary professor at University College London, told POLITICO. The news that the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Karim Khan in May had access to his Microsoft-hosted email cut after U.S. sanctions over the arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has further raised concerns. Microsoft declined to comment on its exact involvement leading to Khan’s email disconnection, saying only more generally: “At no point did Microsoft cease or suspend its services to the ICC.” “Naturally, U.S. companies must comply with U.S. law,” Aura Salla, a center-right Finnish lawmaker in the European Parliament and Meta’s former top lobbyist in Brussels, wrote in reaction to the ICC news, adding that “for Europeans, this means we cannot trust the reliability and security of U.S. companies’ operating systems.” Politicians and experts are arguing for a real European technology alternative. “You can feel that you are one executive order away from losing access to critical technology and critical infrastructures,” said Francesca Bria, an innovation professor at University College London. “It’s become clear that Europe must not depend on any external power that holds the ability to pull the plug.” A €300 BILLION BACKUP PLAN The push for Europe to move off the U.S. cloud confronts a stark reality: unwinding American technological dominance won’t be easy, nor cheap. “If you look at the cloud, if you look at artificial intelligence, data centers, unfortunately, there simply aren’t sufficient alternatives to the offerings by the American digital industry,” Germany’s former Finance Minister Jörg Kukies said in April as he urged the bloc to proceed with caution on trade retaliation against Trump. One industrial policy initiative gaining steam as a blueprint for how the bloc might go about rebalancing the scales puts the price tag at €300 billion. Authored by a group of tech experts and economists and supported by the European industry, the so-called “EuroStack” initiative aims to make Europe self-reliant in digital infrastructure all the way through to software.  The movement wants the EU to rally around three goals: “Buy European,” “Sell European,” and “Fund European.” They urge decision-makers to give EU firms priority in public contracts, setting quotas for government purchases and launching a EuroStack fund to back homegrown tech. “There is nothing exceptional in this approach: these industrial policy tools have been widely used in other jurisdictions, including the U.S., for decades — as large public contracts powered the growth of today’s tech giants,” the organizers write. It won’t be that easy, says Meyers from the CERRE think tank. “They are asking a lot of money for this project. Hundreds of billions. The idea that it is going to magically appear is pretty fanciful,” he said. Opponents such as the American trade group the Chamber of Progress argue the costs could soar past €5 trillion. Several European countries and top lawmakers in the European Parliament have already expressed support for the EuroStack initiative, which was explicitly mentioned in the recent coalition deal in Germany.  Yet politicians are also walking a tightrope as they figure out how to balance any moves towards European sovereignty without being accused of protectionism, which could antagonize a U.S. reaction. “No country or region can lead the technological revolution alone,” the EU’s tech sovereignty chief Henna Virkkunen told reporters in Brussels on June 5, presenting a strategy that also acknowledged the bloc “faces the risk of weaponisation of its technological and economic dependencies.” IN A BIND One rulemaking initiative in the works in Brussels could significantly limit Trump’s future influence to generate widespread digital disruption. But the initiative, setting conditions for a new label designed to level up the cybersecurity of cloud solutions used by companies and administrations, has been stuck in limbo for months among EU countries precisely because it’s a sore spot for the U.S. The proposal could include a top-tier certification guaranteeing immunity from foreign laws. It’s divided countries based on how strongly they are willing to pivot away from U.S. tech, and to speak out against the transatlantic relationship. A freedom of information request filed by POLITICO in October revealed multiple communications from the U.S. State Department to the European Commission dating back to September 2023, as Washington lobbied on the draft plans. The Commission’s tech department refused to release the documents, arguing that disclosure “would affect the mutual trust between the EU and the U.S. and thus undermine their relations.”  France has been a vocal advocate for using the label to put European data beyond the reach of extraterritorial laws like the U.S. Cloud Act, de facto sidelining Big Tech. “Geopolitical tensions are forcing us, more than ever, to question the sovereignty of our data, and therefore its hosting,” French Digital Minister Clara Chappaz said. The Netherlands, heavily relying on U.S. tech, remained until recently a key opponent to using the label to shut out American hyperscalers. But the country’s strong Atlanticism has shown signs of shifting amid the recent transatlantic political turmoil. As the European Commission’s first tech sovereignty chief picks up the initiative, the pressure is growing to unapologetically back made-in-Europe tech and to stand its ground as Washington pushes back. “Europe blindly trusted the U.S. to always be there, and always on their side,” said Bria, the University College London professor. “The situation feels very different now.”