Tuesday, November 10, 2026

ARACHNOLOGY

More than 200 tarantula sightings in Austria in two months

Tarantulas behind a window
Copyright AP Photo

By Kevin Koehrmann
Published on

Tarantulas are particularly active in the autumn, when they search for sheltered spots to spend the winter.

Tarantula sightings are becoming increasingly common in Austria in recent months, with more than 200 reported cases since the beginning of September.

The reports were submitted through the citizen science platform naturbeobachtung.at, with 175 confirmed by experts.

The state of Styria in southeastern Austria has recorded the most sightings over the period, with 66. Lower Austria follows with 49 and then comes Burgenland with 43. Sightings were also reported in Carinthia.

Tarantulas are particularly active in the autumn, when they search for sheltered spots to spend the winter. In some cases, they find their way into flats, houses or garages. In their natural habitat, they typically seek refuge in underground burrows and rock crevices.

Some of the recent discoveries are of particular interest to researchers.

A South Russian tarantula was found in Tulln in Lower Austria, an unusually far northwestern sighting.

There had previously been no reported sightings in the surrounding region, Carolina Trcka-Rojas of the Austrian Nature Conservation Association said.

There were also notable finds involving the black-bellied tarantula. At the end of August, it was spotted in Stossau in the lower Gail valley, the westernmost record of the species in Austria to date.

Two species of tarantula can generally be found in Austria, the southern Russian tarantula and the black-bellied tarantula. Both belong to the wolf spider family and can bite if they feel threatened, although this is rare.

A bite can be painful and may cause redness and swelling. For healthy people, however, it is usually not dangerous.

The South Russian tarantula was first recorded in Austria in the early 1920s, around Lake Neusiedl and Vienna. The black-bellied tarantula was first documented in Styria in the 1970s.

The trend is not limited to Austria. A study from 2025 showed that tarantulas were also spreading in Czechia after declining for decades. Researchers see warmer and drier summers as a key factor.

Kazakhstan blessed with wealth of “high-quality wind” that could put an end to dirty coal, say researchers

Kazakhstan blessed with wealth of “high-quality wind” that could put an end to dirty coal, say researchers
In Greek mythology, Aeolus is the divine controller and keeper of the winds. / Ed Stevenhagen (Overleg), Public domain/wiki, cc
By Nizom Khodjayev in Almaty November 10, 2026

Kazakhstan is notoriously reliant on power generated from Soviet Era coal-fired power plants, but a new study by energy think tank Ember and software firm Converge Hybrid suggests that wind farms paired with solar panels and small batteries could meet the country’s national demand for power at a significantly lower cost than coal.

Ember tested simulated designs of such wind-hybrid power plants against what the study calls a “typical electricity demand profile” in Kazakhstan. In simpler terms, that is a scaled down version of national electricity demand patterns. Kazakhstan’s demand was essentially "shrunk" – for the purposes of the study – to a peak of 100 MW. Each simulated wind-hybrid power plant design was then tested against this 100-MW-peak demand model, representative of Kazakhstan’s yearly demand patterns (the model accounts for evening peaks in demand, overnight dips in demand and all other variabilities in demand that occur throughout a typical year).

Ember found that with a wind-hybrid approach Kazakhstan could meet 70-90% of a typical electricity demand profile, hour by hour, at a delivered cost below $60 per megawatt-hour (MWh) – well below the cost of electricity from a newly-built coal plant, which would stand at $70–170 per MWh.

New capacity needed fast
Kazakhstan’s electricity demand rose 16% in five years, from 107.3 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2020 to 124.6 TWh in 2025. The country has imported more power than it exports since 2022, and the government wants self-sufficiency by 2027.

Coal still supplies 62% of electricity, but the ageing Soviet-built plants average over 50 years old – against a typical lifespan of 40 years – and are subject to frequent malfunctioning. As many as 891 “incidents of various severity” were recorded at the coal-based power plants between January and July this year alone, according to Ember’s assessment. 

“The government is aiming to achieve [power] self-sufficiency by 2027 and potentially become a net exporter by 2029. To replace its ageing infrastructure and keep pace with fast-growing demand, Kazakhstan needs to build more capacity quickly and ensure its availability during peak periods, including winter demand spikes. The capacity also needs to be built close to where demand is to relieve pressure on the transmission network,” Ember’s report said. 

“Kazakhstan already aims to build 6,659 kilometres [4,138 miles] of new high-voltage lines by 2035 to better interconnect its three largely isolated power zones – North, South and West,” the assessment continued. “This includes connecting the West zone to the rest of the national power system and increasing the limited transmission capacity between the coal-rich North and chronically undersupplied South zone. Building new capacity closer to demand would limit how much more grid needs to be built.”

Credit: Report, Ember – Kazakhstan has the wind to power its demand growth. Authors: Kostantsa Rangelova, senior battery analyst at Ember & Philippe Chabarot, co-founder and CEO, Converge-Hybrid. (cc-by-4.0.)

The energy think tank sees the aforementioned wind-solar-battery hybrid plants as a solution to the problem of needing to build capacity both quickly and closer to the sources of demand across the country.

Kazakhstan’s geographical advantage

Ember argues that “Kazakhstan’s geographical advantage lies not in having the world’s highest wind speeds, but in the breadth of its wind resource. High-quality wind is available in nearly every region rather than being concentrated on a handful of corridors. So unlike most countries in the world, Kazakhstan does not have to build wind in a few remote areas with high wind speeds and then build long transmission lines to bring it to where demand is.”

Two-thirds of Kazakhstan has average wind speeds above 7 metres per second (m/s) at 100 metres, which Ember calls “excellent for onshore winds”.

For comparison, “in Germany, where wind accounted for 27% of all power generation in 2025, less than a third (32%) of its territory has wind speeds above 7 m/s,” Ember wrote. 

The study posits that “commercially viable wind can be built close to most demand centres, without adding to Kazakhstan’s already large need for new transmission.”  

New wind farms in Kazakhstan produced 39% of their theoretical maximum output in 2025, beating the 33% global onshore average and nearly matching offshore wind (which stood at 41% in 2025). Yet wind supplied only 4.4% of Kazakhstan's electricity, against 8.6% worldwide. 

This is where Ember’s simulated designs for wind-hybrid plants may come in handy. The designs are meant to address the fact that wind output varies both seasonally and geographically across the country. 

How a hybrid plant works
The hybrid plants are essentially wind farms, solar panels and a battery sharing one grid connection. Ember chose 15 sites for its study and simulated 125 designs at each site “hour by hour over a 30-year project life”. 

“The sites were selected for their proximity to a major demand centre and an existing power line, rather than because they had the country’s strongest winds,” according to the report.  

As stated earlier, the think tank specified that “the [demand] profile represents national demand patterns and was scaled to a peak of 100 MW. Each site was tested against the same demand profile, so differences in results reflect weather conditions rather than differences in load.” 

Ember modelled this “demand profile” based on three years (2022-2024) of weather data. 

The best designs met 70% of demand at the weakest site, located near the southeastern town of Kordai, and 90% at the strongest site, located near the southwestern town of Zhanaozen, at an average delivered cost of $56 per MWh. That is, indeed, much cheaper than the previously stated cost of $70-170 per MWh that would come from a newly built coal-fired power plant.

Even in winter, when demand peaks and solar is weak, 13 of 15 sites cleared 70%, the study said.

To get that high a share, the plants are deliberately designed to be bigger than the demand they would serve. Wind and solar output rises and falls with the weather, so a plant sized to match demand would fall short on every calm, dark day. Oversizing means that even in poor conditions it still produces a useful amount of electricity. However, the catch is that on windy, sunny days it produces more electricity than the customer can use. That surplus is "curtailed" under Ember’s design: the turbines and panels are throttled back or the extra power is discarded. Across the 15 sites, 15-30% of potential output is lost this way, mostly in spring and summer when solar is strongest.

“The curtailment in these results is a [deliberate] design choice,” Ember said.

Credit: Report, Ember – Kazakhstan has the wind to power its demand growth. (cc-by-4.0.)

This lost output is included in the $56 per MWh figure. Building and running the plant works out at about $45 for every MWh it generates. But since customers only receive the electricity that is not thrown away, they would still have to pay for the remaining $11 per MWh, pushing the cost up to $56 for each MWh actually delivered to customers. In other words, $56 is the minimum a plant would need to be paid per delivered MWh to cover its costs.

As such, the extra $11 is the cost of building capacity that is sometimes switched off. The surplus could also be put to use, for example to charge electric vehicles (EVs) or to export power to neighbouring countries, Ember’s study suggested.

Under these designs, the battery plays a supporting role. It stores spare electricity for a few hours (four, in these designs) and releases it when wind and solar output drops, such as on summer evenings after the sun sets. The batteries in the study are modest in size. Their capacity varies between 12-25% of the plant’s combined wind and solar capacity, depending on the weather conditions of each given site, at 14 of the 15 sites.

At Zhanaozen, the best-performing site, the battery is larger, at 37%. Otherwise, bigger batteries would not pay for themselves (excluding the case of the Zhanaozen site), because in winter there is often no surplus electricity to charge them, so they would sit mostly empty. 

“At the project level, adding more battery capacity is not economical, as they remain underutilised due to the large number of days without a large enough surplus to charge the battery in winter,” Ember wrote. “Batteries that only shift their own plant’s output could sit idle for much of the year, so realising their full system value is key.” 

When revisiting the findings that these designs could meet 70-90% of Kazakhstan’s “typical demand profile”, one naturally occurring question could be, “Why not 100%?” 

Why not aim for 100%?
It is technically possible, but the cost climbs steeply – meeting 91-97% of demand would need the largest plant Ember tested (180 MW of wind, 250 MW of solar and a 480 MWh battery), at $87-91 per MWh. That is roughly 50% more than the best designs, which meet 70-90% for under $60 per MWh. The additional percentage points would be expensive because they would need much more wind, solar and battery capacity, and the extra electricity produced would go unused. Each additional MWh gained this way would cost around $205-430. 

Ember argues it is cheaper to cover the remaining gaps through the wider electricity system via “diverse generation sources, storage, transmission and demand-side flexibility”. Examples of this could include imports from neighbouring countries, other renewable or non-renewable power sources and customers who can shift their usage to other times. 

It also helps to spread the plants across the country, as the wind conditions rarely stay poor across the whole country at the same time. The study points out that any single plant has stretches when it supplies less than a fifth of what customers need (mainly during winters), and this happens between 4.5% and 15.6% of the time, depending on the site. But if the 15 plants are linked together, those very-low-output moments almost disappear: the combined output falls that low for only about one hour a year, assuming the plants are well connected through the grid. 

“Winter (December to February) is the most challenging season at most sites, as solar output is low and demand is at its highest. Even so, the modelled hybrid plants meet over 70% of demand at 13 of the 15 sites. A single plant has shortfalls, mostly on winter evenings and before dawn, when it delivers less than a fifth of demand. A flexible, interconnected system can fill these gaps far more cheaply than overbuilding each plant,” Ember wrote. 

Even so, some backup capacity is needed. To cover all but the worst 1% of hours (about 90 hours a year), a single plant would need backup capacity equal to 81-91% of its peak demand, but all 15 plants taken together would need backup equal to only 48%.

It is worth noting that the $56 per MWh cost covers only the cost of electricity generated at a single plant. Ember did not appear to estimate the cost of the backup capacity the wider system would still need. 

No dedicated target beyond 2030
Ember’s study noted that wind power in Kazakhstan is already competitively priced. Recent projects that pair wind farms with batteries have been priced at $39.9-44.9 per megawatt-hour (MWh), which is in line with the $41-49 per MWh that Ember estimates it costs the hybrid plants in its study to generate electricity. 

The share of renewables in the country also appears to be growing quickly, in Ember's view. Renewables supplied 7% of the country’s electricity in 2025, up from 4.5% in 2022, and renewable generation rose 1.7 times over that period, “beating the interim national target” of a 1.5-fold increase, the study said. The longer-term target is 15% by 2030, counting wind, solar, bioenergy and small hydropower. 

With that said, “Kazakhstan does not have a dedicated renewables target beyond 2030,” Ember’s report argues. 

“Instead, the 2050 target is for 50% renewable and other alternative sources, which include nuclear. The lack of a specific renewables target risks undermining progress once the 2030 target is reached. There are already valid concerns that integrating more variable renewables beyond the 15% by 2030 target will be challenging due to insufficient system flexibility,” the study said.

“Kazakhstan’s coal plants have slow ramp rates and cannot run below about 70% of capacity, while other sources of flexibility like demand response and hydropower, remain untapped due to market rules that do not pay for flexibility. The grid operator, Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (KEGOC), has argued for a pause on new renewable projects until flexible capacity catches up,” it added. 

“Increasing system flexibility while keeping up the pace of renewable deployment is the central task of the next decade. A clear and ambitious post-2030 wind and solar target would be a clear signal to investors that the pipeline does not stop at 15%,” the report concluded.

 

Climate crisis now a health emergency of ‘pandemic scale’, UN climate chief warns

UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell delivers opening remarks at COP 31.
Copyright UN Climate Change - Kiara Worth

By Marta Iraola Iribarren
Published on

The United Nations climate chief warns that countries must protect health systems, as climate change poses a growing threat to public health during the climate change conference, COP31, in Turkey.

World leaders and experts have gathered in Antalya, Türkiye, for the United Nations COP31 summit, running from 9 to 20 November, where the health effects of climate change are playing a central role in the discussions, according to Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary.

From air pollution to extreme heat, climate change poses a growing threat to people’s health worldwide.

“The climate crisis is now a global health crisis of pandemic proportions”, said Stiell, adding that climate disasters are battering health systems and infrastructure, and assuring that health would again be a central issue at this year’s summit.

“At this COP, nations face a choice: electric or shock. Rewire the global economy for the electric age or accept ongoing fossil fuel cost pain for families, firms, and governments, and of course that includes health systems”, Stiell said.

Burning fossil fuels and human-caused climate change are linked to an estimated 3.3 million deaths annually through outdoor air pollution and extreme heat, according to the Lancet Countdown 2026.

The past 12 years have been the warmest on record, with the last four – including 2026 – ranking as the four warmest, according to a new World Meteorological Organization report published on 9 November.

Rising temperatures, drought and heavy rainfall can contribute to heat-related illness and mortality, wildfire smoke and poor air quality, malnutrition and food insecurity, injuries, and changing risks of water- and vector-borne diseases such as cholera, malaria and dengue.

“Climate risk finds every vulnerability in a health system and widens it”, Stiell said, citing effects ranging from power cuts to hindered water sanitation.

Stiell said that health should always be “at the heart of climate action” and that the ministries responsible for it must be involved in adaptation discussions.

“Every national adaptation plan should be able to answer some essential questions: Can clinics stay open through a heatwave? Do they have safe water after a flood? Can health workers spot an outbreak before it spreads? Will those most at risk get the care they need?,” he added.

Yet adaptation is not the only answer. “No health system can be made resilient to an endlessly warming world,” Stiell noted, calling on countries to ensure that health is embedded in how climate plans are designed, financing decisions are made and progress is measured.

COP31: Human Rights Critical For Climate Action, HRW Says



Human Rights Watch urged COP31 hosts Türkiye and Australia to center climate-displaced communities, boost adaptation finance for planned relocations, and guarantee free, prior, informed consent plus basic rights at new sites.

The group highlighted risks to civil-society participation given Türkiye’s record of suppressing protests, journalists and environmental defenders, and called on attending states to demand free expression.

Despite scientific consensus against new fossil-fuel projects, the shared presidency has not pressed a transition away from coal, oil and gas, while both host countries continue expansion plans.


Governments participating in the 31st annual United Nations climate change conference (COP31) should urgently act to protect the rights of communities displaced by the climate crisis and ensure that civil society groups can participate in the negotiations, Human Rights Watch said today.

COP31 will take place in Antalya, Türkiye, from November 9 to 20, 2026, under the shared presidency of Türkiye and Australia, on behalf of the Pacific Region. Negotiating countries and international climate funds should ensure that the needs of communities on the front lines of climate impacts and fencelines of fossil fuel extraction are driving the discussions, not corporate interests.

“Intensifying climate impacts are already uprooting entire communities, yet those bearing these consequences are too often excluded from the decisions that determine their futures,” said Maria Laura Canineu, deputy environment director at Human Rights Watch. “Governments in Antalya should put affected communities at the center of climate action by ensuring that adaptation finance flows to displaced communities and to defending the space for civil society to hold government leaders accountable.”


Human Rights Watch’s priorities for COP31 draw on its multi-year field research, including numerous interviews with displaced residents, Indigenous leaders, environmental defenders, and civil society activists.

About 3.5 billion people already live in places and situations that are highly exposed to climate change impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body that assesses the scientific evidence on climate change, has warned that even with urgent government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures will continue to rise and climate impacts—from tropical storms to sea-level rise—are already making the places people call home unsafe, disproportionately affecting Indigenous peoples.

At COP31, Human Rights Watch will present “Solwata,” a 25-minute mixed-reality documentary narrated and executive produced by actor and human rights advocate Mark Ruffalo, produced in partnership with the XR studio NowHere Media and Agog: The Immersive Media Institute. The immersive documentary is based on Human Rights Watch research on Walande, a community in the Solomon Islands, a Pacific island nation that was forced to plan relocation after king tides and rising seas eroded their small island home.


The planned relocation of entire communities to safer land is already happening—including in Panama, Senegal, and the Philippines as well as Solomon Islands—and is projected to increase globally. However, few countries have national policies that protect relocating communities’ rights, and climate finance rarely flows directly to communities planning to relocate. Without adequate policies and direct access to funding, relocating communities frequently struggle with new human rights risks in relocation sites.

At COP31, governments, multilateral development banks, and international climate funds should dramatically increase total funding for climate adaptation, including planned relocation, and ensure that Indigenous and frontline communities have direct access to funding to exercise their collective rights to self-determination. Financing mechanisms should include safeguards so that planned relocation is treated as a measure of last resort after all adaptation efforts are exhausted; that it requires free, prior, and informed consent; and that it guarantees access to adequate housing, livelihoods, food, education, health care, and cultural preservation.

Rights-respecting climate action requires the full and meaningful participation of activists, journalists, human rights defenders, and Indigenous peoples’ representatives. However, Türkiye’s crackdown on freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly raises grave concerns about whether independent civil society will be able to participate safely at COP31.

Turkish authorities have a longstanding record of suppressing free speech, swiftly and brutally dispersing peaceful protests, and jailing government critics, journalists, and environmental defenders. “The Turkish government has ignored the need for environmental protections and turned on local people who are speaking out against environmental damage to their communities,” said Deniz Bayram, assistant Europe and Central Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. “States attending COP31 should speak out against Türkiye’s crackdown on environmental defenders and impress upon their hosts that civil society participation is critical to achieving COP goals.”


Restrictions on civil society have repeatedly marred previous UN climate summits, including arbitrary registration hurdles, surveillance, and detentions.

Meanwhile, despite scientific consensus from the Climate Change Panel that limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius prohibits new oil, gas, or coal projects, the Türkiye and Australia shared presidency has not called on countries to transition away from fossil fuels. At the same time, Türkiye continues plans for harmful coal power plant expansion despite court decisions which have rejected flawed environmental impact assessments greenlighting such projects. Australia has also continued coal expansion despite a high court finding that the state is responsible for emissions from burning exported coal.

Burning coal produces dangerous air pollution that significantly harms public health, particularly for at-risk groups such as children, older adults, and people with chronic conditions, Human Rights Watch said.

International human rights law, including the globally recognized right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, obligates governments to cooperate internationally to mobilize climate finance and to prevent foreseeable human rights harm. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which both Australia and Türkiye are parties, and the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Türkiye is a party, the authorities are legally required to uphold the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly for all COP31 participants inside and outside the conference venue.

“Communities on the front lines of climate impacts know best what they need to survive and adapt with dignity,” Canineu said. “The secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and attending governments should publicly press Turkish authorities to ensure respect for free expression in Antalya so that civil society groups and communities can be heard at COP31.”

 

Europe talks green at COP31 – but scrambles for more fossil fuels

A person poses near a sign for the COP31 U.N. Climate Summit as others wait to get in on Monday, Nov. 9, 2026, in Antalya, Turkey.
Copyright (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

By Marta Pacheco & Sandor Zsiros
Published on

Brussels wants the COP31 to speed up the transition from fossil fuels, but in a world where energy security and affordability are rising up the agenda, more and more governments are seeking short term oil and gas options.

While European leaders gather at COP31 to discuss how to wean their economies off fossil fuels, many of their governments are scrambling to secure more of them.

The energy turmoil triggered by the US-Israeli war on Iran has kept oil and gas at the centre of Europe's economic and geopolitical calculations.

Faced with soaring energy prices, potential supply shortages and mounting pressure from struggling industries, several EU governments are prioritising affordable, reliable energy over longer-term climate commitments – even as delegates at the UN climate summit debate how to phase out fossil fuels.

Although all 27 member states have endorsed the EU's position at COP31, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

New supply deals, expanded import capacity and renewed interest in domestic production are becoming central to Europe's response to a crisis that has exposed just how dependent many of its economies remain on fossil fuels.

Hungarian Energy Minister István Kapitány recently said Budapest was discussing gas purchases from Romania's Neptun Deep field and seeking greater access to Croatian and Greek liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.

“If someone stands on one leg, security is the most important question,” Kapitány told the G7 Paradigma energy conference, referring to Hungary's dependence on a limited number of oil and gas suppliers.

György Bacsa, CEO of Hungarian oil and gas multinational MOL, warned that cutting ties with Russian energy supplies could come at a heavy economic cost.

"This is also a question of affordability. Today, you have to pay such a premium for basic raw materials and energy supplies that, at a certain point, it can lead to societal dysfunction," Bacsa told Euronews.

He said the situation was "no longer a marginal issue where you are simply willing to pay 10 or 20 percent more for green or non-Russian energy".

Bacsa warned that soaring energy bills could "seriously undermine" the Hungarian and Slovak economies, potentially triggering a political crisis with wider European repercussions.

"The consequences of such a crisis would be unpredictable and could have repercussions for European politics as a whole," Bacsa said.

However, MOL has emphasised the effort and money the multinational is putting into alternative supply sources to develop capacity on its own, including the Slovak-Hungarian pipeline connection.

Croatia, meanwhile, wants to use its Krk LNG terminal and port infrastructure to reduce its neighbours' dependence on Russian gas.

Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković has argued that the Adriatic pipeline offers an alternative to Russian oil for landlocked neighbours — even if Budapest and Bratislava argue that such an alternative comes at a higher price.

For Greece, energy security is increasingly a matter of national sovereignty.

Ahead of COP31, Greek Environment and Energy Minister Stavros Papastavrou argued that countries should not have to choose between protecting the climate and securing their energy supplies.

“Harnessing our energy resources is a matter of national importance,” Papastavrou told local media as Greece is embarking on a new offshore project.

Greece wants to reduce dependence on Russian energy and strengthen links with the United States, Cyprus, Egypt and the Balkans. That decision makes liquefied natural gas (LNG) and gas infrastructure part of its foreign policy strategy, not merely an energy-market question.

Greece has also transformed its electricity mix, with wind and solar accounting for more than 40% of generation in 2025. Yet despite further investment in clean energy, their share of electricity generation failed to increase that year, while gas gained ground.

Romania is similarly positioning itself as a regional energy supplier.

Speaking in Abu Dhabi on 3 November, Romanian State Secretary for Energy Marius-Viorel Poșa promoted the country as an investment destination.

“Romania's energy resources and infrastructure position it as an energy hub in Central and Eastern Europe and an attractive investment destination,” he said.

Poșa highlighted the Black Sea's Neptun Deep gas project, which is expected to supply Romania and neighbouring countries, alongside investments in wind power, the Cernavodă nuclear plant and regional electricity interconnections.

But Bucharest is also concerned about the economic cost of decarbonisation.

At a meeting of EU energy ministers on 15 October, Romanian Energy Minister Dumitru Chisăliță backed the energy transition while warning against measures that could undermine industrial competitiveness.

Romanian industrial production was 2.6% below the previous year's level, one of the sharpest contractions in the EU, according to Eurostat.

“Companies need predictable rules and realistic deadlines for adaptation and investment. We must pursue decarbonisation objectives while taking into account their effects on security of supply, the economy and consumers,” Chisăliță said.

Fragmented position

With governments facing domestic resistance and a global energy crisis, Brussels is playing down expectations of a major breakthrough on fossil fuels at COP31.

According to a senior Commission official, the EU wants COP31 to build on the historic commitment made at COP28 in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels, but securing progress on that promise will be "politically difficult".

Brussels has welcomed a roadmap presented by the Brazilian COP30 presidency on transitioning away from fossil fuels, describing it as an opportunity to give fresh momentum to the commitment made in Dubai.

Shortly afterward and encouraged by COP30, 57 countries, including 14 European countries, backed a declaration to develop roadmaps to transition away from fossil fuels at the Santa Marta conference in Colombia.

"We do hope that the Brazilian roadmap will inspire an increasing number of countries to sign up and to make work of it," the senior Commission official said.

However, as Turkey hosts the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, its official focus on electrification is facing intense criticism from environmental groups over its ongoing fossil fuel reliance and expansion.

Canadian Budget Sets Out Nuclear Investments

Canada's Minister of Finance François-Philippe Champagne. Photo Credit: François-Philippe Champagne/X



Canada’s 2026 Budget commits more than CAD 50 billion to double electricity grid capacity by 2050 under the National Electricity Strategy and CAD 518.5 million over five years to implement the Nuclear Energy Strategy.

Nuclear funding covers supply chains and R&D (CAD 261 million), research infrastructure at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (CAD 127 million), regulatory capacity at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CAD 131.1 million), and export promotion.

Prior strategy investments already total CAD 6.5 billion, including support for the Darlington project and export financing for CANDU reactors in Romania, as provinces signal potential for more than 17 GW of new nuclear by 2050.


The budget released by the Canadian government provides funding for a strategy to double grid capacity by 2050, as well as investments in nuclear energy and critical minerals.

Minister of Finance François-Philippe Champagne described the 2026 Budget, titled Masters of our destiny, as an ambitious plan building on the progress from 2025’s budget which has already seen major projects move forward, with 28 “nation-building initiatives” referred to the Major Projects Office, set up by the federal government to help fast-track major projects. (Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington New Nuclear project was one of the first to be referred for consideration.)

The budget, published on 5 November, sets out plans for investments of more than CAD50 billion (USD35.4 billion) to support the goal of doubling electricity grid capacity by 2050 to meet growing demand, while accelerating electrification, under the National Electricity Strategy, and CAD518.5 million to strengthen domestic supply chains and Canada’s position as a “global energy superpower” under the Nuclear Energy Strategy.


The Nuclear Energy Strategy was presented by the government in June, setting out a plan to grow the sector by unlocking investment, modernising regulation, strengthening Canadian research and development, and promoting Canadian nuclear expertise abroad.

“To implement key commitments under the strategy, Budget 2026 proposes to provide CAD518.5 million over five years, starting in 2027-28, and CAD18.1 million ongoing to advance Canada’s nuclear research, supply chains, workforce, and regulatory capacity,” the Budget notes.

This includes: CAD261 million over five years, starting in 2027-28, and CAD4 million ongoing, to Natural Resources Canada to develop nuclear supply chains, support research and development, and advance research reactor capacity and readiness: CAD127 million over five years, starting in 2027-28, and CAD1 million ongoing, to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for research infrastructure, research and
development, workforce development, and other strategic nuclear capabilities; CAD131.1 million over five years, starting in 2027-28, to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to prepare for new nuclear projects and become Canada’s sole federal regulator for nuclear energy projects (CAD18.3 million of this would be cost-recovered); CAD14.4 million over five years, starting in 2027-28, and CAD3.1 million ongoing, to Global Affairs Canada, for nuclear export promotion and government-to-government engagement; and CAD3.3 million over five years, starting in 2027-28, to Health Canada to support the CNSC with expertise on the human health impacts of radiation exposure.


Investments to date under the Nuclear Energy Strategy have totalled CAD6.5 billion, including up to CAD2 billion from the Canada Growth Fund for the Darlington Nuclear Project, alongside support for Indigenous participation through the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program; CAD970 million in low-interest financing from the Canada Infrastructure Bank; and access to the refundable Clean Electricity investment tax credit. Up to CAD3 billion of export financing has also been made available for the construction of two new CANDU reactors in Romania.

Recent milestones under the strategy highlighted in the Budget include the refurbishment of Ontario’s operating nuclear power plants, Ontario and Saskatchewan “signalling the potential” to collectively install more than 17 gigawatts of new nuclear power by 2050; New Brunswick and Alberta “actively studying” the potential role of new nuclear; consideration of CANDU reactors for export “by a number of countries”; Cameco’s signature of a CAD2.6 billion uranium deal with India; the start of construction of two new uranium mines; the assessment by the Department of National Defence of the potential for a “Canadian-controlled” heat and electricity providing microreactor; and moves to make the CNSC the sole responsible authority for conducting impact assessments for all applicable nuclear projects.

“The Nuclear Energy Strategy emphasises that nuclear energy is an essential element of a modern clean grid. It outlines the actions the federal government will take to leverage Canada’s long-standing nuclear expertise and workforce, abundant uranium resources, and sovereign capabilities, in order to grow clean, baseload power, and create jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians at home and abroad,” the Budget notes.


“Being masters of our destiny is about having the confidence to build on our strengths and shape our own future,” Champagne said. “Canada has the resources, talent and ambition to succeed. Budget 2026 builds on those strengths by unlocking investment, building more at home, strengthening our energy and natural resource advantage, and helping Canadian businesses grow and compete on the world stage. That’s how we will create good jobs, make life more affordable, and build a stronger, more resilient and more united Canada for generations to come.”

About World Nuclear News

World Nuclear News is an online service dedicated to covering developments related to nuclear power. Established in 2007, WNN has grown rapidly to welcome over 40,000 individual readers to the website each month, while its free daily and weekly emails both reach more than 16,000 people. These figures represent a broad audience that includes not only nuclear professionals but also journalists, researchers, opinion leaders, policy-makers, and the general public.
View all posts by World Nuclear News →
Is AI A Financial Bubble? – OpEd



November 10, 2026
MISES
By Frank Shostack



Key Takeaways:

Austrian-school analysis argues the AI boom is a classic bubble created by expansionary monetary policy that artificially lowered interest rates and diverted savings from genuine production into projects that would not otherwise have been viable.

The size of the real “subsistence fund” of savings and capital—not impressive technology—determines affordability; chronic government spending, loose money and tariffs have already strained that fund.

The sharp slowdown in money-supply growth since early 2021 is expected to starve these misallocated activities of resources, and further rate cuts would only deepen the eventual bust.


According to some commentators, economic bubbles emerge because of inadequate demand and expanded capacity. Many believe that it is the exact opposite with AI—the expanded capacity is not enough to keep up with the demand. Hence, according to this logic, AI is not a bubble.

There is a tendency among many commentators to associate an economic boom with a healthy and growing economy. On the other hand, an economic bust is associated with economic weakness. Many commentators regard AI as a factor that will significantly strengthen the wealth-generation process. As a result, the chances for an economic bust appear to be very low.


Contrary to this way of thinking, an economic boom is not always genuine growth but often about the transfer of resources via expansionary monetary policies. This transfer is from wealth-generators towards activities that emerged due to expansionary monetary policies.

Once the central bank reverses its expansionary stance, the transfer of resources towards bubble activities that emerged because of easy money, inflation, and credit expansion slows or stops. This causes an economic bust. Hence, various activities that emerged due to credit expansion, including AI, will be starved of resources once the expansion slows or stops.

An expansionary monetary policy, through the lowering of interest rates via artificial increases in money supply, diverts resources to various projects that would not have otherwise emerged, at least not at the time and amounts they did. For instance, many projects, possibly even new AI ventures, that would not not have been considered economically profitable prior to the lowering of the interest rates through credit expansion now seem viable. Due to the artificial lowering of the interest rate, these projects now seem economically viable.


Prior to the lowering of the interest rates, the calculation of the net present value of various projects would have shown a negative figure. However, once credit expansion causes a decrease in interest rates, the calculated net present value of projects becomes positive. In the unhampered market, interest rates mirror individuals’ preferences towards consumption in the present versus consumption in the future. Individuals must necessarily have a higher preference for present consumption versus future consumption. According to Carl Menger:


To the extent that the maintenance of our lives depends on the satisfaction of our needs, guaranteeing the satisfaction of earlier needs must necessarily precede attention to later ones. And even where not our lives but merely our continuing well-being (above all our health) is dependent on command of a quantity of goods, the attainment of well-being in a nearer period is, as a rule, a prerequisite of wellbeing in a later period.

Also, according to Mises,


He who wants to live to see the later day, must first of all care for the preservation of his life in the intermediate period. Survival and appeasement of vital needs are thus requirements for the satisfaction of any wants in the remoter future.


This means that an individual will assign greater value to present goods over identical future goods. Whenever individuals decide to increase their future consumption over present consumption, this means that they have lowered their time preference. This will be manifested in the unhampered market by the lowering of the market interest rates.

As a rule, the central bank’s lowering of the interest rates via inflation actually disregards individuals’ time preferences. The lower interest rate is in response to central bank policy, not a genuine lowering of individual time preferences. In this sense, the lowering of interest rates is not accompanied by increases in individuals’ savings. Individuals have not decided to raise their future consumption and thus allocate savings for this task. This means that savings must be diverted to various bubble projects that emerged because of expansionary monetary policy.

Individuals employed in such activities that came about because of credit expansion and an artificial boom must be sustained. What enables their continued sustenance is continued inflation and the subsistence fund of genuine production and saving. But this cannot last forever.


Such projects might be impressive, such as artificial intelligence (AI), and they may even have emerged to a certain extent on a free market (at different times and in different proportions), however, these projects might not be profitable. What determines the affordability of these projects is the state of genuine market production, saving, capital investment, the pool of the subsistence fund, and how long inflation can continue as a policy.

The size of the subsistence fund constrains the affordability of the various impressive projects, such as AI. The attempt to disregard the fact that the subsistence fund might not be large enough to support various bubble projects could lead to economic impoverishment. For instance, take an individual that has just enough means to procure food and decides to buy a luxury car. As a result, this individual will endure hunger and is likely to weaken his health. Consequently, regardless of how impressive various projects may be, what determines whether these projects are realistically viable is the state of the subsistence fund.

As things currently stand, the subsistence fund is in trouble. The key reason is the ever-growing government spending and the reckless monetary policy of the central bank. In addition to this, the imposition of tariffs further undermines this fund.




The sharp decline in the momentum of money supply since February 2021 is starting to hurt various activities that emerged on the back of the massive increase in the money supply momentum between August 2019 to February 2021. It is likely that the effect from these massive increases, which were historically unprecedented, is still dominating the economic scene. As time goes by, however, the effect from the massive decline in the momentum of money supply on economic activity is expected to assert itself. (Note that there is a time lag from changes in money supply and economic activity).


As a result, various bubbles are likely to crumble. The reason is because the diversion of savings to them will weaken on account of the decline in the money supply momentum. The likely deterioration in the subsistence fund is expected to undermine further the pace of economic activity. Consequently, various bubble activities will not have enough savings to survive.


It is likely that individuals are currently not wealthy enough to pursue activities such as AI to the extent that they are being pursued currently. Consequently, assessing these activities in terms of their possible strength in the months to come is futile. The issue here is not how good these activities are but the fact that they are misallocated and not affordable activities.

Now, if the central bank will aggressively lower interest rates and increase the money supply growth rate, this will make things much worse. Expansionary monetary policy is likely to undermine the subsistence fund further. We expect the banks’ inflationary lending to crumble in the months ahead. As a result, the growth rate in the money supply is likely to follow suit. This is expected to put more pressure on bubble activities.


To mitigate the crisis, what is required is to reduce or end the central bank’s tampering with financial markets and to severely curtail government outlays. This will arrest the pressure on the subsistence fund.

We associate a bubble activity with an expansionary monetary policy of the central bank. This type of policy gives rise to various undertakings that, in the absence of the expansionary monetary policy of the central bank, would not have emerged. Various projects, such as AI, have emerged on the back of the expansionary policy of the central bank might be of impressive nature, however, given the likely shrinking size of the subsistence fund, these projects are not affordable. So, regardless of how impressive these projects are, they are bubble activities and therefore are likely to burst.



About the author: 

Frank Shostak is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, his master’s degree from Witwatersrand University, and his PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University and has taught at the University of Pretoria and the Graduate Business School at Witwatersrand University. Frank’s publishes frequent posts on economics and the markets on his Substack page.


Source: This article was published by Mises



About MISES
The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, the Mises Institute seeks a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. The Mises Institute encourages critical historical research, and stands against political correctness.
View all posts by MISES →