MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Noah Eliot Vanderhoeven, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

The next major international sporting event, the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup hosted jointly by the United States, Canada and Mexico, is already garnering international scrutiny. There have been numerous calls to boycott it.

Calls for a boycott were amplified recently following U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland from Denmark, prompting soccer officials in Germany and France to broach the possibility of both countries boycotting the tournament.

Both countries’ soccer federations have pushed back against calls to boycott the World Cup for now, although recent events in Minneapolis have heightened concerns about the U.S.’ role in hosting the tournament and what that will mean for visitors.

Former FIFA President Sepp Blatter — who was suspended by FIFA in 2015 and replaced by current FIFA president Gianni Infantino amid a corruption scandal he was later acquitted of — recently voiced concerns over the marginalization of political opponents and violent crackdowns on immigration in the U.S.

The World Cup has historically been an event that brings together fans from across the world. Many fans rely on tourist visas, and ICE is expected to be responsible for security at the World Cup. ICE’s director has refused to commit to pausing the agency’s operations during the tournament.

Human rights groups have raised concerns over whether World Cup visitors will be detained and handed to ICE if they engage in actions deemed critical of the U.S. government.

Boycotts at international sporting events

In the history of international sporting events, boycotts have been far less common than bans.

Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were not invited to attend the 1920 Olympic games after losing the First World War.

South Africa was invited to the 1964 Tokyo Games but saw their invitation rescinded due to apartheid, and only rejoined Olympic competition in 1992. Rhodesia saw its invitation to the 1972 Games rescinded due to its government enacting a white supremacist regime.

Notably, both instances of rescinded invitations to the Olympic Games came after other African nations threatened to boycott the Games if South Africa and Rhodesia were invited to participate.

There were also partial boycotts at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. Several nations announced a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics to protest China’s mistreatment of the Uyghur Muslims, prohibiting many government officials from attending in an official capacity, while still permitting athletes to compete. Russia has been banned from most major international sports competitions since it invaded Ukraine in 2022.

However, the most famous boycott of an international sporting event occurred in 1980 ahead of the Summer Olympics in Moscow following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More than 60 countries boycotted those Games, led by the U.S. In turn, 19 countries boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, led by the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries.

Yet there has never been a World Cup boycott by qualified teams on political grounds. In 1934, Uruguay famously chose not to travel to the second-ever World Cup in Italy because several European teams, including Italy, declined to travel to Uruguay for the inaugural tournament in 1930.

Prior to the 1966 World Cup, all African teams withdrew from qualifying in protest because FIFA had only allocated all of the teams from Africa, Asia and Oceania one combined place at the tournament. There were calls for Norway to boycott the 2022 Men’s World Cup in Qatar, but they did not qualify for the tournament.

How likely is a boycott?

As of yet, no leaders of major soccer federations have endorsed calls for their country to boycott the tournament, despite pressure from some executives and politicians. It would likely take decisive action from a federation head, akin to the action President Jimmy Carter took prior to the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, to arrive at a country boycotting.

Furthermore, given the relationship Trump has built up with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, the effect of a boycott, or any credible threats of one, on the United States’ immigration policy or hosting responsibilities would likely be rather limited, making a boycott an unpopular decision that may not achieve the desired goal of any boycotting nation.

Infantino attended Trump’s inauguration and controversially awarded Trump FIFA’s inaugural Peace Prize. More recently, he signed an agreement with Trumps’ Board of Peace on behalf of FIFA.

Infantino was also a staunch defender of Qatar’s building practices in the face of heavy human rights criticism and was willing to change FIFA’s policies at the last minute to acquiesce to Qatar’s demands for limited alcohol sales during the 2022 Men’s World Cup.

Trump could still escalate geopolitical tensions enough to spark further boycott discussions. But for now, a boycott remains unlikely, and even credible threats would likely do little to shift Infantino and Trump from the status quo.

– ref. Calls for a boycott of the 2026 FIFA World Cup are growing, but how realistic is one? – https://theconversation.com/calls-for-a-boycott-of-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-are-growing-but-how-realistic-is-one-275785

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/calls-for-a-boycott-of-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-are-growing-but-how-realistic-is-one-275785/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milan Klöwer, NERC Independent Research Fellow, University of Oxford

Air travel is famously one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise, and the number of air passengers keeps increasing. Electric planes and “sustainable” aviation fuels are still a long way off making a dent in the industry’s emissions – if they ever will.

But new research by me and my colleagues shows aviation could still cut its climate impact dramatically, simply by using planes more efficiently. In fact, rethinking cabin layouts alone could slash emissions by up to half.

From 1980 to 2019, the share of occupied seats in commercial air planes increased from 63% to 82%. Airlines already have strong commercial incentives to sell every seat – empty ones cost money as well as carbon.

For any given level of passenger travel, carrying more people on each flight means other planes can stay grounded and fewer flights are needed overall. It’s planes that make the big difference, not people – the additional weight of a passenger and their luggage is negligible relative to the aircraft and its fuel.

Aviation is responsible for 2%-3% of global CO₂, but its contribution to global warming is about 4% when secondary effects like condensation trails (which trap heat) are factored in. This impact is dominated by rich people flying frequently, often long-haul in business and first class or even private.

Efficiency in aviation is often thought of as an engineering challenge: how much thrust an engine generates for a given amount of jet fuel. But operational efficiency – the amount of passenger-kilometres per unit of CO₂ emitted – has received far less attention.

In our research, my colleagues and I calculated this operational efficiency for the year 2023, for every flight route, by airline, aircraft model and airport. We found that efficiency gains available in the short term could reduce aviation’s climate impact by more than half.

Short empty flights are the least fuel-efficient

On average, aviation emissions fell from around 260 grams of CO₂ per paying passenger-kilometre in 1980 to 90 grams in 2019. That’s a big difference, but for comparison, electrified rail powered by low-carbon energy can emit less than 5 grams.

Our analysis shows that CO₂ efficiency varies enormously across routes, regions, airports, airlines and aircraft models. Some flight routes emit more than 800 grams per passenger-kilometre, others less than 50. This variability is staggering but also yields a large potential to reduce emissions if efficiency across the industry increased towards that of the most efficient routes we analysed.

Among the highest emitting countries, many of the least efficient flights start or land in the US, followed by China, Germany and Japan. Inefficient flights are common elsewhere, particularly from or to smaller airports, and in Africa and Oceania, often exceeding 140g per passenger-kilometre.

By contrast, more efficient flights – below 100 grams per passenger-kilometre – are common in Brazil, India and south-east Asia, particularly on high volume routes. Europe contains a mix of both.

These differences can be explained by the share of occupied seats, the aircraft models used on a route and the cabin layout – especially the space allocated for business and first class.

Budget airlines tend to be more efficient as they seat as many passengers as possible. Spacious business or first class seats are often removed and revenue is instead generated through services such as baggage, food or booking flexibility – all of which add little to flight emissions.

We also found a few newer aircraft models to be the most efficient in operation (Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus 320neo, both in several variants) averaging less than 65 grams of CO₂ per passenger-kilometre. However, they are not (yet) the most widely used, partly because aircraft typically remain in service for around 25 years.

Long-haul flights are on average more efficient than shorter flights. Take-off emissions only occur once, and larger aircraft with more seats are typically used on longer routes. For similar reasons, larger airports tend to have lower average emissions per passenger.

Increasing air travel efficiency

We modelled three hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the potential of certain operational changes, recalculating the total emissions after each change.

First, we increased the average passenger load factor from 80% to 95%. This alone would cut emissions by 16%, as fewer flights would be needed to carry the same number of passengers. While this is already in airlines’ interests, creating additional incentives – such as emissions-linked airport charges or fuel taxes – could encourage further gains.

Second, we imagined only the two most efficient aircraft (Boeing 787-9 and Airbus A321neo) were in operation. Aircraft cannot be replaced overnight, given their long service lives, and the industry hasn’t built enough 787-9 or A321neo yet anyway. But choosing already existing aircraft highlights the potential of replacing older aircraft with newer and more efficient ones – in our calculations, it would save between 27% and 34% of global emissions. This would also require overcoming logical and commercial constraints, again potentially incentivised by airport or fuel charges.

Third, we analysed the impact of an all-economy cabin layout. Business and first class seats are up to five times more CO₂-intensive than economy seating because they occupy far more space per passenger. Operating all aircraft at the manufacturers maximum seating capacity would reduce global aircraft emissions by between 26% and 57%.

There are already large differences between airlines. Some chose to set up their Boeing 777-300 ERs with more than 400 economy seats, while others have as few as 200, despite a maximum seating capacity of 550.

Our findings highlight how strongly aviation emissions are shaped by travel inequality between occasional economy fliers and frequent business and first class travellers. Many of those may complain about the inconvenience of economy class. But perhaps that’s not a bad thing: it could create an even stronger incentive to reduce the number of non-essential journeys.

– ref. Scrapping business class could halve aviation emissions – new study – https://theconversation.com/scrapping-business-class-could-halve-aviation-emissions-new-study-275474

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/scrapping-business-class-could-halve-aviation-emissions-new-study-275474/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hazell, Professor of British Politics and Government & Founder of the Constitution Unit, UCL

Following the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for possible misconduct in public office, both the palace and the government will be hoping that his case might be brought to a swift conclusion. There are three main reasons why this is unlikely.

1. The vagueness of the offence

The offence Mountbatten-Windsor is being investigated for – misconduct in public office – is famously vague. This complicates the task for the prosecution, who will have to devote more time and effort to understanding the elements of the offence, and then ensuring that they can prove each element.

Misconduct in public office is not set out in an act of parliament, it is an offence under the common law. The public office (accountability) bill (also known as the Hillsborough law) currently going through parliament is meant to give it a statutory definition. But that will be too late for any prosecution of Mountbatten-Windsor, which will have to be for the common law offence, developed in a series of court judgements going back centuries.

In medieval times, the offence was intended to catch those in trusted public office who did something to betray that trust. It later fell into disuse, but was recently revived to catch corrupt police officers whose misconduct (such as selling information to journalists) did not fit easily into well-established offences.

The court of appeal in 2004 reframed the judge-made law for modern times, summarising four elements of the offence. It must be committed by:

• A public officer, acting as such, who

• wilfully misconducts himself

• to such a degree as to abuse the public’s trust in the office holder

• without reasonable excuse or justification.

Readers must judge for themselves whether this makes the offence any less vague. In careful understatement, the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines state that “the offence should be strictly confined, and it can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues”.

2. Multiple police forces involved

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested by Thames Valley Police, but they are not the only force looking into revelations from the millions of documents in the Epstein files. Mountbatten-Windsor denies any wrongdoing in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Metropolitan Police, Essex Police (for flights in and out of Stansted) and Surrey Police are also assessing claims. Some of those investigations are for possible trafficking into or outside the UK for sexual exploitation, which if proved would be offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The National Police Chiefs Council has announced a national group to support the investigating forces.

Police enquiries will inevitably take some time. In addition to the scale of the Epstein files, when looking for evidence of misconduct in public office, the police will want to search through UK government files.

Mountbatten-Windsor was trade envoy from 2001 to 2011. Much of the evidence is likely to be retrieved from his emails and the files of agencies like UK Trade and Investment, and government departments like the Department of Trade (now Business and Trade), the Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Number 10. Government record keeping is not what it was, and records from that long ago will take time to find and produce.

3. Difficulties facing the CPS and the courts

If the police have gathered sufficient evidence, they will submit all the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS in turn will need time to consider whether there is a sufficient case to prosecute, for a common law offence whose definition is still vague and complex.

The CPS code states that they will only prosecute an alleged crime if there is a “realistic prospect of conviction”. This means that a jury, “properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge”.

The main legal difficulties may lie in proving that when acting as trade envoy Mountbatten-Windsor was the holder of a public office, and that his conduct was such as to abuse the public’s trust. In trying to clarify the latter test, the court of appeal said that abuse of trust must amount to “an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”

The CPS will also need to liaise closely with the team investigating Peter Mandelson, who is also under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office, related to evidence that he passed confidential government information to Epstein. If the police pass a file on Mandelson to the CPS, there will be similarities in the evidential and legal difficulties in proving misconduct in each case.

It could be a very long time before any trial takes place. One of the biggest obstacles to a swift conclusion is the state of the courts. The recent review by retired senior judge Brian Leveson found a backlog of almost 80,000 cases awaiting trial in the crown court last September, and forecast the backlog would reach 100,000 cases by November 2027.

Some defendants are already being told their cases will not be heard until 2030. To avoid any further suggestions that Mountbatten-Windsor is above the law, his case may have to wait in the queue, just like everyone else’s.

– ref. Misconduct in public office: three reasons why the case against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is so complex – https://theconversation.com/misconduct-in-public-office-three-reasons-why-the-case-against-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-is-so-complex-276556

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/misconduct-in-public-office-three-reasons-why-the-case-against-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-is-so-complex-276556/