Connect with us

Tech

Researchers chart path for investors to build a cleaner aviation industry

Published

on

Researchers chart path for investors to build a cleaner aviation industry


Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Cutting planet-warming pollution to near-zero will take more than inventing new clean technologies—it will require changing how the world invests in them. That’s especially true for industries like aviation, where developing and adopting greener solutions is risky and expensive, according to a University of California San Diego commentary piece in Science.

The paper calls for smarter ways of managing investment risk that could help speed up the shift toward cleaner air travel and other hard-to-decarbonize sectors.

“The aviation sector—a fast-growing source of greenhouse gases—illustrates the broader challenge of industrial decarbonization: too little investment in technologies that could yield the biggest climate benefits,” said the paper’s co-author David G. Victor, professor of innovation and at the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy and co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative.

The piece outlines a new approach that could help guide a coalition of research and development (R&D) programs alongside investors and airlines seeking to deploy new technologies to curb from the .

“Despite all the chaos in global geopolitics and climate policies these days, there are large and growing pools of capital willing to take risks on clean ,” Victor said. “What’s been missing is a framework to guide that capital to the riskiest but most transformative investments.”

He added that investors and research managers tend to focus on familiar, lower-risk projects like next-generation jet engines or recycled-fuel pathways.

“But getting aviation and other hard-to-abate sectors to near-zero emissions means taking on bigger risks with technologies and new lines of business that will be highly disruptive to the existing industry. Investors and airlines need to find smarter ways to encourage and manage these disruptive investments,” Victor said.

In the article, Victor and co-authors call for a more realistic framework to guide both and private .

They propose a tool called an Aviation Sustainability Index (ASI)—a quantitative method to assess how different technologies or investments could help decouple emissions from growth in air travel.

The approach is designed to help investors distinguish between projects that only modestly improve efficiency and those that could significantly transform the sector’s climate impact.

The authors note that while roughly $1 trillion is expected to flow into aviation over the next decade, most of that money will simply make aircraft slightly more efficient. Few investors, they argue, have clear incentives to back the kind of breakthrough technologies—such as hydrogen propulsion, advanced aircraft designs, or large-scale sustainable fuel systems—that could substantially reduce emissions.

“Cleaner flight is possible, but it requires changing how we think about both risk and return,” Victor said. “We need new institutions, incentives, and partnerships that reward innovation, not just incrementalism.”

The commentary, written by a multinational team of scholars, also highlights a broader lesson for : global decarbonization goals such as “net zero by 2050” sound bold and ambitious. But when it becomes clear that they can’t be met, these goals make it harder to focus on the practical steps needed today to drive change in real-world markets.

Ultimately, the paper argues for action that begins now. By developing better tools to evaluate climate-friendly investments and by rewarding companies willing to take calculated risks on breakthrough technologies, governments, and industry leaders can accelerate real progress toward decarbonization.

The paper was co-authored by Thomas Conlon of University College Dublin, Philipp Goedeking of Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz (Germany) and Andreas W. Schäfer of University College London.

More information:
David G. Victor et al, Mobilizing capital and technology for a clean aviation industry, Science (2025). DOI: 10.1126/science.adu2458. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adu2458

Citation:
Researchers chart path for investors to build a cleaner aviation industry (2025, October 16)
retrieved 16 October 2025
from https://techxplore.com/news/2025-10-path-investors-cleaner-aviation-industry.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.





Source link

Tech

The Best Chromebooks Are Doing Their Best to Course Correct

Published

on

The Best Chromebooks Are Doing Their Best to Course Correct


I was delighted to see that the Acer Chromebook Plus 516 didn’t skimp on a crappy touchpad. That goes a long way toward improving the experiencing of actually using the laptop on a moment-by-moment basis. I wasn’t annoyed every time I had to click-and-drag or select a bit of text. This one’s biggest weakness is definitely the screen, which is true of just about every cheap Chromebook I’ve tested. The colors are ugly and desaturated, giving the whole thing a sickly green tint. It’s also not the sharpest in the world, as it’s stretching 1920 x 1200 pixels across a large, 16-inch screen. But in terms of usability and performance, the Acer Chromebook Plus 516 is a great value, combining an Intel Core i3 processor with 8 GB of RAM and a 128 GB of storage. For a Chromebook that’s often on sale for $350, it’s a steal.

While we’re here, let’s go even cheaper, shall we? Asus has two dirt-cheap Chromebooks that I tested last year that I was mildly impressed by. The Asus Chromebook CX14 and CX15. Notice in the name that these are not “Chromebook Plus” models, meaning they can be configured with less RAM and storage, and even use lower-powered processors. That’s exactly what you get on the cheaper configurations of the CX14 and CX15, which is how you sometimes get prices down to as low as $130. I definitely recommend the version with 8 GB of RAM, but regardless of which you choose, the both the CX14 and larger CX15 are mildly attractive laptops. You’d know that’s a big compliment if you’ve seen just how ugly Chromebooks of this price have been in the past.

With these, though, I appreciate the relatively thin bezels and chassis thickness, as well as the larger touchpad and comfortable keyboard. The CX15 even comes in a striking blue color. The touchpad isn’t great, nor is the display. Like the Acer Chromebook Plus 516, it suffers from poor color reproduction and only goes up to 250 nits of brightness. It only has a 720p webcam too, which makes video calls a bit rough. But that’s going to be true of nearly all the competition (and there isn’t much).

Of the two models, I definitely prefer the CX14 though, as it doesn’t have a numberpad and off-center touchpad, which I’ve always found to be awkward to use. Look—no one’s going to love using a computer that costs the less than $200, but if it’s what you can afford, the Asus Chromebook CX14 will at least get you by without too much frustration.

Whatever you do, don’t just head over to Amazon and buy whatever ancient Chromebook is selling for $100 for your kid. It’s worth the extra cash to get something with better battery life, a more modern look, and decent performance.

Other Good Chromebooks We’ve Tested

We’ve tested dozens and dozens of Chromebooks over the past years, having reviewed every major release across the spectrum of price. Unlike Macs and Windows laptops, Chromebooks tends to stick around a bit longer though, and aren’t refreshed as often. I stand by my picks above, but here are a few standouts from our testing that are still worth buying for the right person.

Photograph: Daniel Thorp-Lancaster



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Interview: Critical local infrastructure is missing link in UK cyber resilience | Computer Weekly

Published

on

Interview: Critical local infrastructure is missing link in UK cyber resilience | Computer Weekly


Critical local infrastructure that supports council services, social care services and local transport in the UK is falling through the gaps in government and business planning for cyber resilience, claims Jonathan Lee, director of cyber strategy at cyber security company TrendAI.

In an interview with Computer Weekly, Lee says that municipal areas, such as London or Greater Manchester, could be at risk from multiple cyber attacks that could damage local infrastructure, causing escalating problems for residents that could add up to severe disruption.

“We need to be thinking about what would happen if multiple attacks happened at the same time across the city region – and the human impact of not being able to do your job properly, not being able to travel around and not being able to deliver public services,” he says.

The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (CSRB), which is currently going through Parliament, aims to ensure that critical national services, such as healthcare, water, transport and energy, are protected against cyber attacks that cost the economy billions of pounds a year. But local infrastructure has been relatively neglected, claims Lee.

The National Cyber Security Centre’s (NCSC) Cyber Assurance Framework, for example, aims to help operators of critical national infrastructure (CNI) demonstrate a base level of cyber security preparedness – but it is not mandatory, and not every organisation that should implement it is implementing it.

Whole of society risk

“We need to be more stringent in making sure that people are taking this seriously and are looking not just at their own organisation, but are looking at the whole of society risk,” says Lee.

Attacks on public services, such as council-run social care, can have a catastrophic, knock-on effect on the NHS and patient care, he adds.

There is a need for more “top-down” advice for regional infrastructure providers, from organisations such as the NCSC, which is not as well known as it could be among the companies and public sector bodies that provide local infrastructure.

“The message has got to be diffused down into local levels to ensure that a consistent message is spread out, and that can also be through industry partners. That is something I feel quite strongly about,” says Lee.

The Cyber Essentials programme, which has been updated to include new requirements for organisations to use multifactor authentication (MFA), and requirements for cloud providers to patch vulnerabilities within 14 days, has helped build resilience, but only for organisations that choose to adhere to it.

Keeping the resilience score

The UK government is also intending to publish a Cyber Action Plan in the coming months, which will guide organisations to get basic security right and improve their cyber security over time.

Although there is no shortage of initiatives and action plans, there is a danger that many of these plans will be left on a shelf.

One approach is for organisations to rate themselves on a scorecard for cyber resilience, on a scale of, say, 1 to 100, and to report their progress back to board-level directors.

“We need a mechanism to measure how impactful these interventions are, whether it be things like the Cyber Assessment Framework, Cyber Essentials or legislation,” says Lee.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Join Our Livestream: Musk v. Altman and the Future of OpenAI

Published

on

Join Our Livestream: Musk v. Altman and the Future of OpenAI


Two of Big Tech’s most influential billionaires, Sam Altman and Elon Musk, will go head-to-head in a highly anticipated trial beginning April 27. In Musk v. Altman, a judge, advised by a jury, will ultimately determine whether OpenAI has strayed from its founding mission to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits humanity, and the ruling could influence how the world’s leading AI developer controls and distributes its technology. For now, you can learn more about the trial here.

On the Panel

On May 8, a panel of WIRED experts will go live to answer your questions about this consequential case.

  • Zoë Schiffer: WIRED’s director of business and industry, who oversees coverage of business and Silicon Valley.
  • Maxwell Zeff: a senior writer at WIRED covering the business of artificial intelligence. He writes the weekly Model Behavior newsletter, which focuses on the people, communities, and companies behind Silicon Valley’s AI scene.
  • Paresh Dave: a senior writer at WIRED covering the inner workings of Big Tech companies. He writes about how apps and gadgets are built and about their impacts while giving voice to the stories of the underappreciated and disadvantaged.

Ask a Question

Submit all your burning questions about this historic legal battle at WIRED’s next, subscriber-only livestream scheduled for May 8 at noon ET / 9 PT. To leave questions in advance as the trial unfolds, head to the comment section below.

Become a Subscriber

The event will be streamed right here. For subscribers who are not able to join, a replay of the livestream will be available after the event. Not a subscriber yet? Subscribe now to get access to this livestream, plus full access to WIRED.

In the meantime, check out past livestreams on Big Tech and the military, the future of electric vehicles, and more.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending