Last week reporters Jillian Ambrose and Damian Carrington published a piece which revealed that biggest oil firms made $93bn in profits in three months amid the war in Iran and the climate crisis. They’re online now to to discuss their story and any other questions you might have

Ask a question: log in or sign up here

StanEthel asks: Does anyone in the fossil fuel industry accept responsibility for climate change? If they don’t, how is their denial structured: it’s not happening, it’s someone else’s fault, it’s not our fault?

Damian:

The short answer is no, and a rising tide of lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for their role in the climate crisis means that is unlikely to change anytime soon. The science is ever clearer though. An analysis published last September showed for the first time that carbon emissions from the world’s biggest fossil fuel firms were directly linked to fatal spells of hot weather.

The big oil companies were among the first to realise the dangers of global warming half a century ago. But decades of denial then followed. As the reality of climate crisis has become undeniable, the arguments of the fossil fuel industry have shifted. Gas was cleaner than coal, for example, or that carbon credits from new forests could offset emissions. Today, the industry likes to tout carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a solution. But just this week, one of CCS’s loudest cheerleaders, ExxonMobil, has started a process to sue the European Union which wants to make the company actually store a small amount of CO2.

In the first weeks of the conflict, some predicted that the government’s taxes on North Sea oil and gas would yield a £20bn tax windfall for the Treasury if surging oil and gas prices remained high over the whole year. This is because the government’s windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas, known as the Energy Profits Levy, imposes an effective headline tax rate on North Sea profits of 78%, and the Treasury collects VAT from petrol and diesel sales too.

But prices have not climbed by as much as first feared. So what can we reasonably expect? Before the war, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that oil and gas revenues would raise £2.7bn in the 2025/26 financial year. It also suggests that for every $10 increase to the benchmark oil price, the Exchequer can expect an extra £900m in revenue. Meanwhile, every 1p increase in the price of gas hands the Treasury an extra £55m.

Most people set out in life wanting to believe the world is fair. They expect people to wait their turn in queues, to be treated equally in their job, and to be rewarded for hard work. These expectations influence how they understand the world around them, and shape their responses to it.

But what happens when life repeatedly challenges those assumptions? Psychologists have long been interested in this question. Our new research, published in the British Journal of Psychology, suggests adverse experiences shape both how fair people believe the world is, and how they view their place in society.

Over the course of a lifetime, personal setbacks – from illness and bereavement to being a victim of crime – may have a cumulative effect, leading to a growing sense that the world is unfair. We think this is important in the context of today’s increasingly polarised societies, in which trust in institutions has declined severely in the UK and many other countries.

Adversity and unfairness

Our research set out to answer two key questions: do experiences of adversity influence whether people see the world as fundamentally unfair – and if so, what are the societal consequences? We conducted three surveys involving more than 1,200 British participants with an equal gender split and average age of 39.

In one study, we found that people who reported experiencing more lifetime adversity – including illness, bereavement, financial hardship and violence – were more likely to believe the world was unfair.

In another, we compared people who had experienced violent victimisation with those who had not. After accounting for demographic factors, people who had experienced violent crime reported stronger perceptions of injustice.

Our final study found that greater lifetime adversity was associated with lower trust in institutions through perceptions of injustice. This is important because trust underpins many aspects of society, from confidence in public institutions to democratic participation.

Together, these findings suggest that people don’t simply interpret information based on the facts available to them. They also interpret it through the lens of their previous experiences.

Two people can read the same news story, watch the same political debate or hear the same public health advice, yet come away with very different conclusions that may not simply reflect differences in knowledge or politics. It may also reflect differences in how they have come to see the world as a result of the hardships they have faced.

Furthermore, if someone increasingly believes that the world is unfair, they may be more likely to notice fresh examples of perceived injustice, corruption or hidden motives – and interpret new events through that lens.

Belief in conspiracy theories

Previous research has shown that people who feel uncertain, powerless or threatened are often more likely to endorse conspiracy theories. Most of this work, however, has focused on their identities, traits and beliefs.

In our investigation of the impact of adverse life experiences on people, we found a remarkably consistent pattern. When these hardships are associated with stronger perceptions of injustice in the world, the same people more strongly endorse conspiracy beliefs.

Conspiracy theories rarely describe events as random. Instead, they tend to suggest that powerful individuals or organisations are secretly responsible for what happens. They offer explanations that identify intentional causes behind events that might otherwise seem confusing or unjust.

Research suggests that across societies, the level of belief in conspiracy theories is relatively stable over time. But once these beliefs become part of how someone understands the world, they can be difficult to shift.

This makes it all the more important to understand the experiences and psychological processes that may contribute to these worldviews developing in the first place. Our findings suggest that perceptions of injustice are one such pathway.

For someone who increasingly feels the world is unfair, conspiracy theories may become more psychologically appealing – providing a way of making sense of experiences that otherwise feel difficult to understand.

Our research does not suggest that adversity inevitably leads to conspiracy beliefs; nor that conspiracy theories are an inevitable consequence of trauma. Rather, it highlights a long-term psychological process that may help explain why some people become more receptive to these ideas.

In an increasingly polarised world, the media and political focus is often concentrated on what information people consume. But our research suggests we should pay more attention to the experiences that shape the lens through which people interpret information. This could help explain why people can look at the same events and reach very different conclusions.

Ultimately, people’s experiences don’t just affect them in the moment. They shape their worldview – which can influence how they interpret and respond to events and other people’s behaviour far into the future.

So, we believe any effort to reach greater consensus in society may require a deeper understanding of the hardships people have lived through over the course of their lives – and how these can affect their sense of injustice.

Daniel Jolley has received funding from the Leverhulme Trust, the British Academy, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). The studies mentioned in this piece were funded by the British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grants Scheme (SRG23/230720) and carried out in collaboration between Daniel Jolley, Laura Blackie, and research assistant Anna Maughan.

Laura Blackie has received funding from the British Academy.

CLICCA QUI PER CONTINUARE A LEGGERE

SpaceX has formally asked US regulators for permission to operate as many as one million AI data-center satellites. That number is real. It is also an upper limit in an application, not an approved fleet, a launch schedule or evidence that one million spacecraft will actually be built.

If the full Starmind system ever existed, its direct waste heat would be too small to become a major global climate driver. The harder environmental question lies in the industrial cycle required to create and replace it: manufacturing enormous amounts of hardware, launching it through the atmosphere and eventually vaporizing much of it during re-entry.

Climate models have only begun to study satellite constellations measured in tens of thousands. A million large computing satellites would sit far beyond the scale directly tested in that literature.

The FCC has accepted an application, not approved a million launches

SpaceX filed its application on January 30, 2026. The Federal Communications Commission accepted it for public comment on February 4.

The filing seeks authority for a non-geostationary system of up to one million satellites between 500 and 2,000 kilometers altitude. The spacecraft would exchange data through optical links and connect with SpaceX’s Starlink network.

Accepting an application for filing is an administrative step. It does not mean the FCC has determined that the architecture is safe, environmentally acceptable or technically achievable. The public notice also says SpaceX plans different hardware versions across multiple orbital shells, so “one million satellites” does not describe one fixed design.

SpaceX has since presented its first AI1 design for the Starmind system. The company’s published specifications give it a 120-kilowatt average compute load, a 150-kilowatt peak and a deployed wingspan of 70 meters.

The computers’ direct heat is not the main climate problem

Computers turn almost all the electricity they use into heat. In orbit, that heat cannot leave through air or cooling water because neither is available. Large radiator surfaces must emit it as infrared radiation.

One million AI1 satellites operating at the advertised average would use about 120 gigawatts for computing. To put a strict upper bound on the direct climate effect, imagine that every watt of that heat somehow reached and was absorbed by Earth. Spread over the planet’s surface, it would average roughly 0.00024 watts per square meter.

That artificial scenario overstates the real effect because radiators can direct most thermal radiation toward deep space. Even so, its value is more than 10,000 times smaller than the IPCC’s estimate of 2.72 watts per square meter for total human-caused effective radiative forcing between 1750 and 2019.

The fleet would therefore not warm Earth simply by running hot computers overhead. Reflected sunlight, radiator orientation and the design of vast solar arrays would still need assessment, but direct compute heat is not the dominant global term.

Space solar power could avoid some terrestrial emissions

SpaceX argues that sun-synchronous satellites could collect solar energy without clouds or night-time interruptions and reject heat without chillers, cooling towers or fans. If orbital computing genuinely replaced electricity from fossil-fueled grids, it could avoid some power-sector carbon emissions and water consumption.

That benefit cannot be calculated from the one-million figure. A fair comparison would need the energy and materials used to manufacture satellites and rockets, propellant production, launch emissions, ground stations, replacement rates, failed spacecraft and the carbon intensity of the terrestrial data centers displaced.

No published life-cycle assessment yet covers SpaceX’s proposed full system. “Powered by solar energy” describes operation in orbit, not the environmental balance of building and continually replenishing the fleet.

Rocket exhaust is unusually effective high in the atmosphere

Rocket emissions are small beside global aviation, shipping or power generation by mass. Their location makes them different. Rockets inject black carbon, water vapor, nitrogen compounds, alumina and other products directly into atmospheric layers that surface pollution rarely reaches.

Black carbon absorbs sunlight and warms the surrounding stratosphere, changing atmospheric circulation and ozone chemistry. A NOAA modeling study found that a tenfold increase in hydrocarbon-rocket soot could warm parts of the stratosphere by 0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius and alter circulation. The authors stressed that soot emissions from different engines remain poorly measured.

A newer 2026 study in Earth’s Future modeled launch and re-entry emissions from the recent megaconstellation era through 2029. It found a global stratospherically adjusted forcing of about -0.0064 watts per square meter from all space missions in its scenario, with megaconstellations contributing 42 percent.

That modeled forcing is small compared with the present greenhouse-gas-driven climate imbalance, and its negative sign represents a slight cooling influence after the stratosphere adjusts. It is not necessarily good news. The same soot warms the stratosphere, changes circulation and can affect ozone. It is better understood as an uncontrolled atmospheric perturbation than as useful climate cooling.

The result also cannot be multiplied mechanically from thousands of satellites to one million. Starmind would use different spacecraft, potentially different launch vehicles and an unknown deployment cadence.

Re-entry would turn satellite material into atmospheric aerosol

Low-Earth-orbit constellations require replacement. Hardware fails, components age and atmospheric drag eventually brings spacecraft down. A million-satellite fleet with a five-year average life would imply 200,000 replacements and re-entries every year. SpaceX has not established that lifetime for the full system, but the example shows why lifespan matters as much as fleet size.

Re-entering spacecraft do not simply disappear. Heating vaporizes metals and creates particles and gases in the upper atmosphere. A 2024 global emissions inventory identified aluminum oxide as the dominant modeled metal oxide from satellites that ablate, alongside nitrogen oxides produced by high-temperature re-entry.

A 2025 atmospheric modeling study tested a scenario with 10,000 metric tons of re-entry alumina per year, a level associated with forecasts of roughly 60,000 satellites. Depending on particle size and re-entry latitude, the model produced regional temperature anomalies reaching about 1.5 degrees in the middle atmosphere and changes to polar-vortex winds.

That is not a prediction of 1.5 degrees of global surface warming. It is a modeled regional response high in the atmosphere, with large uncertainty about particle size, composition and transport. Scaling to Starmind requires basic information that is not public, especially spacecraft mass, material composition, operational life and disposal pattern.

A million is a different environmental regime

Space Daily has already examined how large Starmind spacecraft could affect ground-based astronomy. Climate and atmospheric chemistry pose a separate problem: pollution can accumulate even when each individual launch or re-entry looks small.

The most honest answer is therefore split. Direct waste heat from the orbital computers would be negligible at the global climate scale. Moving computing away from terrestrial grids might avoid emissions, but that benefit has not been demonstrated through a full life-cycle study.

The serious unknown is the launch-and-replacement machine surrounding the constellation. Existing research already finds measurable, though currently small, radiative and ozone effects from today’s much smaller space industry. A fleet approaching one million satellites would turn an emerging source of upper-atmosphere pollution into a planetary experiment without a validated model of the outcome.

The post SpaceX has asked to operate up to one million AI satellites, but their direct waste heat would barely affect global temperature; the larger climate question is what launches and mass re-entry would put into the upper atmosphere appeared first on Space Daily.

Yesterday saw two conflicting reports about next year’s 20th anniversary iPhone, said to embody Apple’s long-term vision of “a single slab of glass.”

There have already been contradictory reports about exactly what we should expect, but yesterday’s disagreement was the biggest yet …

Anton Levy, the former co-president and chair of the global technology group at General Atlantic, has raised more than $1.1 billion for his inaugural fund, a sign that he has been able to compete with some of the biggest names in venture and growth equity during a challenging environment for ...

Samsung SDI is taking full control of its Indiana battery plant. The South Korean cell maker is buying out General Motors’ 49.99% stake in their joint venture, according to a regulatory filing, ending GM’s ownership in the $3.5 billion factory.

That turns the New Carlisle, Indiana plant into Samsung SDI’s first wholly owned battery factory in North America.

If you are trying to reduce your nicotine spending in 2026, one question naturally comes up: is vaping cheaper than smoking cigarettes?

For most adult smokers who switch completely to vaping, the answer is still yes. However, the size of the saving depends on how much you smoke, what type of vape you use, how frequently you replace pods or coils, and where you buy your products.

In the UK, the cost gap is also being influenced by changes to tobacco taxation and the introduction of the Vaping Products Duty (VPD) from October 2026. Even with the new vape tax, vaping is expected to remain less expensive than smoking for many users.

Vaping vs. Smoking: The Quick Answer

For a regular smoker, vaping can cost substantially less than buying cigarettes every day.

The NHS says that, once the initial vape kit has been purchased, vaping has been estimated to cost about one-third as much as smoking.

The exact saving will vary, though. A refillable pod system with e-liquid can have a very different running cost from frequently buying premium disposable or prefilled products.

Here’s a simplified comparison:

Why Smoking Is So Expensive in 2026

The biggest reason cigarettes are expensive is taxation.

UK cigarette prices include tobacco duty and VAT. The government increased tobacco duty in November 2025, and another increase is scheduled for 1 October 2026. From that date, the cigarette duty rate will rise to £394.09 per 1,000 cigarettes plus 16.5% of the retail price, subject to the minimum excise duty of £518.75 per 1,000 cigarettes.

For someone smoking every day, these costs add up quickly.

Example: A Pack-a-Day Smoker

Imagine an adult smoker buying one 20-cigarette pack every day.

At a hypothetical retail price of £15 per pack, the spending would be:

• £15 per day
• £105 per week
• £450 per 30 days
• £5,475 per year

This is only an example because cigarette prices vary by brand and retailer. If the price of a pack rises, the annual cost rises accordingly.

The important point is that smoking creates a recurring expense that is difficult to reduce without cutting consumption.

Why Vaping Can Be Cheaper

Vaping separates the cost of the device from the cost of the consumable.

A reusable pod system or vape kit may require an upfront purchase, but the device can then be used repeatedly. The ongoing expenses generally involve:

• E-liquid
• Replacement pods
• Replacement coils
• Occasionally a replacement battery or device

This can make the running cost considerably lower than buying a new packet of cigarettes every day.

The NHS specifically states that vaping costs much less than smoking and estimates that, after purchasing a kit, vaping can cost around one-third as much as smoking.

The Cheapest Vaping Setup in 2026

If your primary goal is reducing ongoing costs, a reusable refillable vape is generally worth considering rather than treating vaping as a series of disposable purchases.

A typical cost-conscious setup might include:

1. A reusable pod kit
2. A bottle of e-liquid
3. Replacement pods or coils
4. A charger if required

Once the device has been purchased, you only need to replace the consumables.

This is particularly important because the UK has already prohibited the sale or supply of disposable vapes. The NHS notes that disposable vapes can no longer legally be sold or supplied in the UK, while reusable and refillable products remain available.

What About the New Vaping Tax?

One of the biggest changes affecting the vaping-versus-smoking calculation in 2026 is the UK’s new Vaping Products Duty.

From 1 October 2026, the duty on vaping liquid will be £2.20 per 10ml. HMRC’s guidance confirms that the duty is calculated according to the volume of vaping product.

For example:

• 10ml of e-liquid → £2.20 duty
• 20ml → £4.40 duty
• 30ml → £6.60 duty
• 50ml → £11.00 duty
• 100ml → £22.00 duty

This tax is incorporated into the supply chain and can ultimately affect the retail price paid by consumers.

The government has also increased tobacco duty at the same time. It announced a £2.20 increase per 100 cigarettes alongside the introduction of the £2.20-per-10ml vaping duty, with the stated aim of preserving the price difference between vaping and tobacco.

So while vaping is becoming more expensive, cigarettes are also facing substantial tax increases.

Refillable Vapes vs. Disposable Vapes

When comparing vaping costs, it is important not to treat every vape product as equally economical.

Refillable Pod Systems

Refillable pod systems can be one of the more economical approaches because you purchase e-liquid separately and reuse the device.

Their costs include:

• Initial device
• E-liquid
• Pods or coils
• Occasional replacement device

For someone who vapes regularly, spreading the cost of the hardware over many months can reduce the effective daily cost.

Prefilled Pods

Prefilled pod systems are convenient because there is less maintenance and no need to manually fill a tank.

However, convenience can come with a higher cost per unit of nicotine or e-liquid compared with buying larger quantities of refillable e-liquid.

Disposable Vapes

Disposable vapes were once popular partly because of their simplicity, but they are no longer a legal retail option in the UK. The NHS confirms that disposable vapes cannot legally be sold or supplied.

For UK consumers in 2026, therefore, cost comparisons should focus mainly on reusable and refillable vaping products.

A Simple Annual Cost Comparison

Let’s use an illustrative example rather than claiming a universal retail price.

Suppose a smoker spends £15 per day on cigarettes:

£15 × 365 = £5,475 per year

Now suppose a hypothetical vaping setup costs £5 per day on average, including e-liquid, pods/coils and the annualised cost of the device:

£5 × 365 = £1,825 per year

That would represent a potential saving of:

£5,475 − £1,825 = £3,650 per year

The numbers are illustrative rather than a prediction of what every vaper will spend. Your actual cost could be considerably higher or lower depending on consumption and product choice.

The NHS’s estimate that vaping can cost around one-third as much as smoking provides useful context for why these savings can be substantial.

What Can Make Vaping More Expensive?

Vaping is not automatically cheap.

Your spending can increase if you:

• Buy premium devices frequently
• Use high quantities of e-liquid
• Replace pods or coils unnecessarily often
• Buy expensive prefilled products
• Keep multiple devices
• Upgrade hardware frequently
• Vape continuously throughout the day

Someone who regularly buys new devices and premium products may spend much more than someone using a basic refillable pod system.

In other words, your vaping style matters almost as much as the product itself.

What Can Make Smoking Even More Expensive?

Smoking costs can also rise beyond the price of cigarettes.

A smoker may spend additional money on:

• Lighters
• Cigarette cases
• Tobacco accessories
• Travel-related purchases
• Convenience-store premiums
• Tobacco price increases

More importantly, smoking is a daily expense. Even a relatively small increase in the price of a packet can translate into hundreds of pounds of additional spending over a year.

With further tobacco duty increases scheduled for October 2026, this pressure is unlikely to disappear.

Is Vaping Worth It Just to Save Money?

For an existing adult smoker, switching completely from cigarettes to vaping may reduce nicotine-related spending while also reducing exposure to many toxic substances found in cigarette smoke.

The NHS states that vaping is not risk-free, but that nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking and exposes users to a smaller fraction of the risks associated with smoking.

However, the financial calculation should not be interpreted as a recommendation for non-smokers to start vaping.

If you do not smoke, starting vaping simply to save money does not make financial or health sense. The NHS advises that non-smokers should not vape.

For smokers considering switching, the greatest financial benefit comes from switching completely rather than maintaining both habits.

Dual Use Can Destroy the Savings

One of the biggest mistakes in a vaping-versus-smoking comparison is assuming that someone will completely replace cigarettes with vaping.

For example, if you continue smoking half a pack of cigarettes per day while also vaping, you are paying for two nicotine products.

That can result in:

Cigarette spending + vaping spending = higher total nicotine spending

A complete switch can therefore be much more economical than simply adding vaping to an existing smoking habit.

The NHS also notes that smokers only get the full benefits of switching when they stop smoking completely.

Vaping vs. Smoking: Which Is Cheaper in 2026?

For most adult smokers, vaping remains the cheaper option in 2026, particularly when using a reusable refillable device and buying e-liquid efficiently.

The cost advantage is being narrowed somewhat by the introduction of Vaping Products Duty from October 2026, but tobacco products are also facing higher taxation. The UK government’s policy continues to maintain a price differential between vaping and tobacco.

The Bottom Line

If you’re comparing the two purely on running costs:

Smoking: High and continually rising cost, largely driven by tobacco duty.

Vaping: Lower potential running cost, but affected by device, e-liquid and replacement-pod expenses.

Refillable vaping: Usually the most cost-conscious vaping approach.

Disposable vapes: No longer legally sold or supplied in the UK.

Dual use: Can eliminate much of the potential financial saving.

For a regular smoker, switching completely to a reusable vaping system can potentially save hundreds or even thousands of pounds per year, depending on previous cigarette consumption and vaping habits.

However, cost is only one part of the decision. Vaping is not harmless, and non-smokers should not start vaping. For smokers who want to quit, both financial considerations and health considerations should be taken into account.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is vaping cheaper than smoking in 2026?

Generally, yes. The NHS estimates that vaping can cost about one-third as much as smoking once the initial vape kit has been purchased.

Will vaping become more expensive in October 2026?

Yes. The UK is introducing Vaping Products Duty at £2.20 per 10ml of vaping liquid from 1 October 2026.

Are cigarettes getting more expensive in 2026?

Yes. UK tobacco duty is scheduled to increase again on 1 October 2026, including higher cigarette duty and a higher minimum excise duty.

Are disposable vapes legal in the UK in 2026?

No. The NHS states that disposable vapes cannot legally be sold or supplied in the UK. Reusable and refillable products remain available.

Is vaping completely safe?

No. Vaping is not risk-free. However, NHS guidance says nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking cigarettes.

What is the cheapest way to vape?

For an adult smoker who chooses to switch, a reusable refillable pod system can generally provide a lower ongoing cost than repeatedly buying prefilled or single-use products. Actual savings depend on e-liquid consumption, hardware costs and purchasing habits.

The post Vaping vs. Smoking: Which Is Cheaper in 2026? appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.