• Biofuels policy has been a failure for the climate, new report claims

    Fewer food crops

    Biofuels policy has been a failure for the climate, new report claims

    Report: An expansion of biofuels policy under Trump would lead to more greenhouse gas emissions.

    Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News



    Jun 14, 2025 7:10 am

    |

    24

    An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska.

    Credit:

    David Madison/Getty Images

    An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska.

    Credit:

    David Madison/Getty Images

    Story text

    Size

    Small
    Standard
    Large

    Width
    *

    Standard
    Wide

    Links

    Standard
    Orange

    * Subscribers only
      Learn more

    This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.
    The American Midwest is home to some of the richest, most productive farmland in the world, enabling its transformation into a vast corn- and soy-producing machine—a conversion spurred largely by decades-long policies that support the production of biofuels.
    But a new report takes a big swing at the ethanol orthodoxy of American agriculture, criticizing the industry for causing economic and social imbalances across rural communities and saying that the expansion of biofuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions, despite their purported climate benefits.
    The report, from the World Resources Institute, which has been critical of US biofuel policy in the past, draws from 100 academic studies on biofuel impacts. It concludes that ethanol policy has been largely a failure and ought to be reconsidered, especially as the world needs more land to produce food to meet growing demand.
    “Multiple studies show that US biofuel policies have reshaped crop production, displacing food crops and driving up emissions from land conversion, tillage, and fertilizer use,” said the report’s lead author, Haley Leslie-Bole. “Corn-based ethanol, in particular, has contributed to nutrient runoff, degraded water quality and harmed wildlife habitat. As climate pressures grow, increasing irrigation and refining for first-gen biofuels could deepen water scarcity in already drought-prone parts of the Midwest.”
    The conversion of Midwestern agricultural land has been sweeping. Between 2004 and 2024, ethanol production increased by nearly 500 percent. Corn and soybeans are now grown on 92 and 86 million acres of land respectively—and roughly a third of those crops go to produce ethanol. That means about 30 million acres of land that could be used to grow food crops are instead being used to produce ethanol, despite ethanol only accounting for 6 percent of the country’s transportation fuel.

    The biofuels industry—which includes refiners, corn and soy growers and the influential agriculture lobby writ large—has long insisted that corn- and soy-based biofuels provide an energy-efficient alternative to fossil-based fuels. Congress and the US Department of Agriculture have agreed.
    The country’s primary biofuels policy, the Renewable Fuel Standard, requires that biofuels provide a greenhouse gas reduction over fossil fuels: The law says that ethanol from new plants must deliver a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline.
    In addition to greenhouse gas reductions, the industry and its allies in Congress have also continued to say that ethanol is a primary mainstay of the rural economy, benefiting communities across the Midwest.
    But a growing body of research—much of which the industry has tried to debunk and deride—suggests that ethanol actually may not provide the benefits that policies require. It may, in fact, produce more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels it was intended to replace. Recent research says that biofuel refiners also emit significant amounts of carcinogenic and dangerous substances, including hexane and formaldehyde, in greater amounts than petroleum refineries.
    The new report points to research saying that increased production of biofuels from corn and soy could actually raise greenhouse gas emissions, largely from carbon emissions linked to clearing land in other countries to compensate for the use of land in the Midwest.
    On top of that, corn is an especially fertilizer-hungry crop requiring large amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which releases huge amounts of nitrous oxide when it interacts with the soil. American farming is, by far, the largest source of domestic nitrous oxide emissions already—about 50 percent. If biofuel policies lead to expanded production, emissions of this enormously powerful greenhouse gas will likely increase, too.

    The new report concludes that not only will the expansion of ethanol increase greenhouse gas emissions, but it has also failed to provide the social and financial benefits to Midwestern communities that lawmakers and the industry say it has.“The benefits from biofuels remain concentrated in the hands of a few,” Leslie-Bole said. “As subsidies flow, so may the trend of farmland consolidation, increasing inaccessibility of farmland in the Midwest, and locking out emerging or low-resource farmers. This means the benefits of biofuels production are flowing to fewer people, while more are left bearing the costs.”
    New policies being considered in state legislatures and Congress, including additional tax credits and support for biofuel-based aviation fuel, could expand production, potentially causing more land conversion and greenhouse gas emissions, widening the gap between the rural communities and rich agribusinesses at a time when food demand is climbing and, critics say, land should be used to grow food instead.
    President Donald Trump’s tax cut bill, passed by the House and currently being negotiated in the Senate, would not only extend tax credits for biofuels producers, it specifically excludes calculations of emissions from land conversion when determining what qualifies as a low-emission fuel.
    The primary biofuels industry trade groups, including Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association, did not respond to Inside Climate News requests for comment or interviews.
    An employee with the Clean Fuels Alliance America, which represents biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel producers, not ethanol, said the report vastly overstates the carbon emissions from crop-based fuels by comparing the farmed land to natural landscapes, which no longer exist.
    They also noted that the impact of soy-based fuels in 2024 was more than billion, providing over 100,000 jobs.
    “Ten percent of the value of every bushel of soybeans is linked to biomass-based fuel,” they said.

    Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News

    24 Comments
    #biofuels #policy #has #been #failure
    Biofuels policy has been a failure for the climate, new report claims
    Fewer food crops Biofuels policy has been a failure for the climate, new report claims Report: An expansion of biofuels policy under Trump would lead to more greenhouse gas emissions. Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News – Jun 14, 2025 7:10 am | 24 An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. The American Midwest is home to some of the richest, most productive farmland in the world, enabling its transformation into a vast corn- and soy-producing machine—a conversion spurred largely by decades-long policies that support the production of biofuels. But a new report takes a big swing at the ethanol orthodoxy of American agriculture, criticizing the industry for causing economic and social imbalances across rural communities and saying that the expansion of biofuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions, despite their purported climate benefits. The report, from the World Resources Institute, which has been critical of US biofuel policy in the past, draws from 100 academic studies on biofuel impacts. It concludes that ethanol policy has been largely a failure and ought to be reconsidered, especially as the world needs more land to produce food to meet growing demand. “Multiple studies show that US biofuel policies have reshaped crop production, displacing food crops and driving up emissions from land conversion, tillage, and fertilizer use,” said the report’s lead author, Haley Leslie-Bole. “Corn-based ethanol, in particular, has contributed to nutrient runoff, degraded water quality and harmed wildlife habitat. As climate pressures grow, increasing irrigation and refining for first-gen biofuels could deepen water scarcity in already drought-prone parts of the Midwest.” The conversion of Midwestern agricultural land has been sweeping. Between 2004 and 2024, ethanol production increased by nearly 500 percent. Corn and soybeans are now grown on 92 and 86 million acres of land respectively—and roughly a third of those crops go to produce ethanol. That means about 30 million acres of land that could be used to grow food crops are instead being used to produce ethanol, despite ethanol only accounting for 6 percent of the country’s transportation fuel. The biofuels industry—which includes refiners, corn and soy growers and the influential agriculture lobby writ large—has long insisted that corn- and soy-based biofuels provide an energy-efficient alternative to fossil-based fuels. Congress and the US Department of Agriculture have agreed. The country’s primary biofuels policy, the Renewable Fuel Standard, requires that biofuels provide a greenhouse gas reduction over fossil fuels: The law says that ethanol from new plants must deliver a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline. In addition to greenhouse gas reductions, the industry and its allies in Congress have also continued to say that ethanol is a primary mainstay of the rural economy, benefiting communities across the Midwest. But a growing body of research—much of which the industry has tried to debunk and deride—suggests that ethanol actually may not provide the benefits that policies require. It may, in fact, produce more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels it was intended to replace. Recent research says that biofuel refiners also emit significant amounts of carcinogenic and dangerous substances, including hexane and formaldehyde, in greater amounts than petroleum refineries. The new report points to research saying that increased production of biofuels from corn and soy could actually raise greenhouse gas emissions, largely from carbon emissions linked to clearing land in other countries to compensate for the use of land in the Midwest. On top of that, corn is an especially fertilizer-hungry crop requiring large amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which releases huge amounts of nitrous oxide when it interacts with the soil. American farming is, by far, the largest source of domestic nitrous oxide emissions already—about 50 percent. If biofuel policies lead to expanded production, emissions of this enormously powerful greenhouse gas will likely increase, too. The new report concludes that not only will the expansion of ethanol increase greenhouse gas emissions, but it has also failed to provide the social and financial benefits to Midwestern communities that lawmakers and the industry say it has.“The benefits from biofuels remain concentrated in the hands of a few,” Leslie-Bole said. “As subsidies flow, so may the trend of farmland consolidation, increasing inaccessibility of farmland in the Midwest, and locking out emerging or low-resource farmers. This means the benefits of biofuels production are flowing to fewer people, while more are left bearing the costs.” New policies being considered in state legislatures and Congress, including additional tax credits and support for biofuel-based aviation fuel, could expand production, potentially causing more land conversion and greenhouse gas emissions, widening the gap between the rural communities and rich agribusinesses at a time when food demand is climbing and, critics say, land should be used to grow food instead. President Donald Trump’s tax cut bill, passed by the House and currently being negotiated in the Senate, would not only extend tax credits for biofuels producers, it specifically excludes calculations of emissions from land conversion when determining what qualifies as a low-emission fuel. The primary biofuels industry trade groups, including Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association, did not respond to Inside Climate News requests for comment or interviews. An employee with the Clean Fuels Alliance America, which represents biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel producers, not ethanol, said the report vastly overstates the carbon emissions from crop-based fuels by comparing the farmed land to natural landscapes, which no longer exist. They also noted that the impact of soy-based fuels in 2024 was more than billion, providing over 100,000 jobs. “Ten percent of the value of every bushel of soybeans is linked to biomass-based fuel,” they said. Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News 24 Comments #biofuels #policy #has #been #failure
    ARSTECHNICA.COM
    Biofuels policy has been a failure for the climate, new report claims
    Fewer food crops Biofuels policy has been a failure for the climate, new report claims Report: An expansion of biofuels policy under Trump would lead to more greenhouse gas emissions. Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News – Jun 14, 2025 7:10 am | 24 An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images An ethanol production plant on March 20, 2024 near Ravenna, Nebraska. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. The American Midwest is home to some of the richest, most productive farmland in the world, enabling its transformation into a vast corn- and soy-producing machine—a conversion spurred largely by decades-long policies that support the production of biofuels. But a new report takes a big swing at the ethanol orthodoxy of American agriculture, criticizing the industry for causing economic and social imbalances across rural communities and saying that the expansion of biofuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions, despite their purported climate benefits. The report, from the World Resources Institute, which has been critical of US biofuel policy in the past, draws from 100 academic studies on biofuel impacts. It concludes that ethanol policy has been largely a failure and ought to be reconsidered, especially as the world needs more land to produce food to meet growing demand. “Multiple studies show that US biofuel policies have reshaped crop production, displacing food crops and driving up emissions from land conversion, tillage, and fertilizer use,” said the report’s lead author, Haley Leslie-Bole. “Corn-based ethanol, in particular, has contributed to nutrient runoff, degraded water quality and harmed wildlife habitat. As climate pressures grow, increasing irrigation and refining for first-gen biofuels could deepen water scarcity in already drought-prone parts of the Midwest.” The conversion of Midwestern agricultural land has been sweeping. Between 2004 and 2024, ethanol production increased by nearly 500 percent. Corn and soybeans are now grown on 92 and 86 million acres of land respectively—and roughly a third of those crops go to produce ethanol. That means about 30 million acres of land that could be used to grow food crops are instead being used to produce ethanol, despite ethanol only accounting for 6 percent of the country’s transportation fuel. The biofuels industry—which includes refiners, corn and soy growers and the influential agriculture lobby writ large—has long insisted that corn- and soy-based biofuels provide an energy-efficient alternative to fossil-based fuels. Congress and the US Department of Agriculture have agreed. The country’s primary biofuels policy, the Renewable Fuel Standard, requires that biofuels provide a greenhouse gas reduction over fossil fuels: The law says that ethanol from new plants must deliver a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline. In addition to greenhouse gas reductions, the industry and its allies in Congress have also continued to say that ethanol is a primary mainstay of the rural economy, benefiting communities across the Midwest. But a growing body of research—much of which the industry has tried to debunk and deride—suggests that ethanol actually may not provide the benefits that policies require. It may, in fact, produce more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels it was intended to replace. Recent research says that biofuel refiners also emit significant amounts of carcinogenic and dangerous substances, including hexane and formaldehyde, in greater amounts than petroleum refineries. The new report points to research saying that increased production of biofuels from corn and soy could actually raise greenhouse gas emissions, largely from carbon emissions linked to clearing land in other countries to compensate for the use of land in the Midwest. On top of that, corn is an especially fertilizer-hungry crop requiring large amounts of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which releases huge amounts of nitrous oxide when it interacts with the soil. American farming is, by far, the largest source of domestic nitrous oxide emissions already—about 50 percent. If biofuel policies lead to expanded production, emissions of this enormously powerful greenhouse gas will likely increase, too. The new report concludes that not only will the expansion of ethanol increase greenhouse gas emissions, but it has also failed to provide the social and financial benefits to Midwestern communities that lawmakers and the industry say it has. (The report defines the Midwest as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.) “The benefits from biofuels remain concentrated in the hands of a few,” Leslie-Bole said. “As subsidies flow, so may the trend of farmland consolidation, increasing inaccessibility of farmland in the Midwest, and locking out emerging or low-resource farmers. This means the benefits of biofuels production are flowing to fewer people, while more are left bearing the costs.” New policies being considered in state legislatures and Congress, including additional tax credits and support for biofuel-based aviation fuel, could expand production, potentially causing more land conversion and greenhouse gas emissions, widening the gap between the rural communities and rich agribusinesses at a time when food demand is climbing and, critics say, land should be used to grow food instead. President Donald Trump’s tax cut bill, passed by the House and currently being negotiated in the Senate, would not only extend tax credits for biofuels producers, it specifically excludes calculations of emissions from land conversion when determining what qualifies as a low-emission fuel. The primary biofuels industry trade groups, including Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association, did not respond to Inside Climate News requests for comment or interviews. An employee with the Clean Fuels Alliance America, which represents biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel producers, not ethanol, said the report vastly overstates the carbon emissions from crop-based fuels by comparing the farmed land to natural landscapes, which no longer exist. They also noted that the impact of soy-based fuels in 2024 was more than $42 billion, providing over 100,000 jobs. “Ten percent of the value of every bushel of soybeans is linked to biomass-based fuel,” they said. Georgina Gustin, Inside Climate News 24 Comments
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Trump administration takes aim at Biden and Obama cybersecurity rules

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday that revises and rolls back cybersecurity policies set in place by his Democratic predecessors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
    In a White House fact sheet, the administration claims that Biden’s Executive Order 14144 — signed days before the end of his presidency — was an attempt “to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy.”
    Among other things, Biden’s order encouraged agencies to “consider accepting digital identity documents” when public benefit programs require ID. Trump struck that part of the order, with the White House now saying this approach risks “widespread abuse by enabling illegal immigrants to improperly access public benefits.”
    However, Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, told Politico that “the fixation on revoking digital ID mandates is prioritizing questionable immigration benefits over proven cybersecurity benefits.” 
    On AI, Trump removed Biden’s requirements around testing the use of AI to defend energy infrastructure, funding federal research programs around AI security, and directing the Pentagon to “use AI models for cyber security.”
    The White House describes its moves on AI as refocusing AI cybersecurity strategy “towards identifying and managing vulnerabilities, rather than censorship.”Trump’s order also removed requirements that agencies start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable.” And it removed requirements that federal contractors attest to the security of their software — the White House describes those requirements as “unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.”

    Techcrunch event

    + on your TechCrunch All Stage pass
    Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections.

    + on your TechCrunch All Stage pass
    Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections.

    Boston, MA
    |
    July 15

    REGISTER NOW

    Going back even further, Trump’s executive order repeals Obama’s policies around sanctions for cybersecurity attacks on the United States; those sanctions can now only be applied to “foreign malicious actors.” The White House says this will will prevent “misuse against domestic political opponents” and clarify that “sanctions do not apply to election-related activities.”
    #trump #administration #takes #aim #biden
    Trump administration takes aim at Biden and Obama cybersecurity rules
    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday that revises and rolls back cybersecurity policies set in place by his Democratic predecessors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. In a White House fact sheet, the administration claims that Biden’s Executive Order 14144 — signed days before the end of his presidency — was an attempt “to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy.” Among other things, Biden’s order encouraged agencies to “consider accepting digital identity documents” when public benefit programs require ID. Trump struck that part of the order, with the White House now saying this approach risks “widespread abuse by enabling illegal immigrants to improperly access public benefits.” However, Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, told Politico that “the fixation on revoking digital ID mandates is prioritizing questionable immigration benefits over proven cybersecurity benefits.”  On AI, Trump removed Biden’s requirements around testing the use of AI to defend energy infrastructure, funding federal research programs around AI security, and directing the Pentagon to “use AI models for cyber security.” The White House describes its moves on AI as refocusing AI cybersecurity strategy “towards identifying and managing vulnerabilities, rather than censorship.”Trump’s order also removed requirements that agencies start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable.” And it removed requirements that federal contractors attest to the security of their software — the White House describes those requirements as “unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Techcrunch event + on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. + on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | July 15 REGISTER NOW Going back even further, Trump’s executive order repeals Obama’s policies around sanctions for cybersecurity attacks on the United States; those sanctions can now only be applied to “foreign malicious actors.” The White House says this will will prevent “misuse against domestic political opponents” and clarify that “sanctions do not apply to election-related activities.” #trump #administration #takes #aim #biden
    TECHCRUNCH.COM
    Trump administration takes aim at Biden and Obama cybersecurity rules
    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday that revises and rolls back cybersecurity policies set in place by his Democratic predecessors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. In a White House fact sheet, the administration claims that Biden’s Executive Order 14144 — signed days before the end of his presidency — was an attempt “to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy.” Among other things, Biden’s order encouraged agencies to “consider accepting digital identity documents” when public benefit programs require ID. Trump struck that part of the order, with the White House now saying this approach risks “widespread abuse by enabling illegal immigrants to improperly access public benefits.” However, Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, told Politico that “the fixation on revoking digital ID mandates is prioritizing questionable immigration benefits over proven cybersecurity benefits.”  On AI, Trump removed Biden’s requirements around testing the use of AI to defend energy infrastructure, funding federal research programs around AI security, and directing the Pentagon to “use AI models for cyber security.” The White House describes its moves on AI as refocusing AI cybersecurity strategy “towards identifying and managing vulnerabilities, rather than censorship.” (Trump’s Silicon Valley allies have complained repeatedly about the threat of AI “censorship.”) Trump’s order also removed requirements that agencies start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable.” And it removed requirements that federal contractors attest to the security of their software — the White House describes those requirements as “unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | July 15 REGISTER NOW Going back even further, Trump’s executive order repeals Obama’s policies around sanctions for cybersecurity attacks on the United States; those sanctions can now only be applied to “foreign malicious actors.” The White House says this will will prevent “misuse against domestic political opponents” and clarify that “sanctions do not apply to election-related activities.”
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    656
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Trump scraps Biden software security, AI, post-quantum encryption efforts in new executive order

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    President Donald Trump signed an executive orderFriday that scratched or revised several of his Democratic predecessors’ major cybersecurity initiatives.
    “Just days before President Trump took office, the Biden Administration attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy,” the White House said in a fact sheet about Trump’s new directive, referring to projects that Biden launched with his Jan. 15 executive order.
    Trump’s new EO eliminates those projects, which would have required software vendors to prove their compliance with new federal security standards, prioritized research and testing of artificial intelligence for cyber defense and accelerated the rollout of encryption that withstands the future code-cracking powers of quantum computers.
    “President Trump has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure,” the White House said in its fact sheet, “including focusing relentlessly on technical and organizational professionalism to improve the security and resilience of the nation’s information systems and networks.”
    Major cyber regulation shift
    Trump’s elimination of Biden’s software security requirements for federal contractors represents a significant government reversal on cyber regulation. Following years of major cyberattacks linked to insecure software, the Biden administration sought to use federal procurement power to improve the software industry’s practices. That effort began with Biden’s 2021 cyber order and gained strength in 2024, and then Biden officials tried to add teeth to the initiative before leaving office in January. But as it eliminated that project on Friday, the Trump administration castigated Biden’s efforts as “imposing unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.”
    Trump’s order eliminates provisions from Biden’s directive that would have required federal contractors to submit “secure software development attestations,” along with technical data to back up those attestations. Also now eradicated are provisions that would have required the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to verify vendors’ attestations, required the Office of the National Cyber Director to publish the results of those reviews and encouraged ONCD to refer companies whose attestations fail a review to the Justice Department “for action as appropriate.”

    Trump’s order leaves in place a National Institute of Standards and Technology collaboration with industry to update NIST’s Software Software Development Framework, but it eliminates parts of Biden’s order that would have incorporated those SSDF updates into security requirements for federal vendors.
    In a related move, Trump eliminated provisions of his predecessor’s order that would have required NIST to “issue guidance identifying minimum cybersecurity practices”and required federal contractors to follow those practices.
    AI security cut
    Trump also took an axe to Biden requirements related to AI and its ability to help repel cyberattacks. He scrapped a Biden initiative to test AI’s power to “enhance cyber defense of critical infrastructure in the energy sector,” as well as one that would have directed federal research programs to prioritize topics like the security of AI-powered coding and “methods for designing secure AI systems.” The EO also killed a provision would have required the Pentagon to “use advanced AI models for cyber defense.”
    On quantum computing, Trump’s directive significantly pares back Biden’s attempts to accelerate the government’s adoption of post-quantum cryptography. Biden told agencies to start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable” and to start requiring vendors to use it when technologically possible. Trump eliminated those requirements, leaving only a Biden requirement that CISA maintain “a list of product categories in which products that support post-quantum cryptography … are widely available.”
    Trump also eliminated instructions for the departments of State and Commerce to encourage key foreign allies and overseas industries to adopt NIST’s PQC algorithms.
    The EO dropped many other provisions of Biden’s January directive, including one requiring agencies to start testing phishing-resistant authentication technologies, one requiring NIST to advise other agencies on internet routing security and one requiring agencies to use strong email encryption. Trump also cut language directing the Office of Management and Budget to advise agencies on addressing risks related to IT vendor concentration.
    In his January order, Biden ordered agencies to explore and encourage the use of digital identity documents to prevent fraud, including in public benefits programs. Trump eliminated those initiatives, calling them “inappropriate.” 
    Trump also tweaked the language of Obama-era sanctions authorities targeting people involved in cyberattacks on the U.S., specifying that the Treasury Department can only sanction foreigners for these activities. The White House said Trump’s change would prevent the power’s “misuse against domestic political opponents.”
    Amid the whirlwind of changes, Trump left one major Biden-era cyber program intact: a Federal Communications Commission project, modeled on the Energy Star program, that will apply government seals of approval to technology products that undergo security testing by federally accredited labs. Trump preserved the language in Biden’s order that requires companies selling internet-of-things devices to the federal government to go through the FCC program by January 2027.
    #trump #scraps #biden #software #security
    Trump scraps Biden software security, AI, post-quantum encryption efforts in new executive order
    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. President Donald Trump signed an executive orderFriday that scratched or revised several of his Democratic predecessors’ major cybersecurity initiatives. “Just days before President Trump took office, the Biden Administration attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy,” the White House said in a fact sheet about Trump’s new directive, referring to projects that Biden launched with his Jan. 15 executive order. Trump’s new EO eliminates those projects, which would have required software vendors to prove their compliance with new federal security standards, prioritized research and testing of artificial intelligence for cyber defense and accelerated the rollout of encryption that withstands the future code-cracking powers of quantum computers. “President Trump has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure,” the White House said in its fact sheet, “including focusing relentlessly on technical and organizational professionalism to improve the security and resilience of the nation’s information systems and networks.” Major cyber regulation shift Trump’s elimination of Biden’s software security requirements for federal contractors represents a significant government reversal on cyber regulation. Following years of major cyberattacks linked to insecure software, the Biden administration sought to use federal procurement power to improve the software industry’s practices. That effort began with Biden’s 2021 cyber order and gained strength in 2024, and then Biden officials tried to add teeth to the initiative before leaving office in January. But as it eliminated that project on Friday, the Trump administration castigated Biden’s efforts as “imposing unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Trump’s order eliminates provisions from Biden’s directive that would have required federal contractors to submit “secure software development attestations,” along with technical data to back up those attestations. Also now eradicated are provisions that would have required the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to verify vendors’ attestations, required the Office of the National Cyber Director to publish the results of those reviews and encouraged ONCD to refer companies whose attestations fail a review to the Justice Department “for action as appropriate.” Trump’s order leaves in place a National Institute of Standards and Technology collaboration with industry to update NIST’s Software Software Development Framework, but it eliminates parts of Biden’s order that would have incorporated those SSDF updates into security requirements for federal vendors. In a related move, Trump eliminated provisions of his predecessor’s order that would have required NIST to “issue guidance identifying minimum cybersecurity practices”and required federal contractors to follow those practices. AI security cut Trump also took an axe to Biden requirements related to AI and its ability to help repel cyberattacks. He scrapped a Biden initiative to test AI’s power to “enhance cyber defense of critical infrastructure in the energy sector,” as well as one that would have directed federal research programs to prioritize topics like the security of AI-powered coding and “methods for designing secure AI systems.” The EO also killed a provision would have required the Pentagon to “use advanced AI models for cyber defense.” On quantum computing, Trump’s directive significantly pares back Biden’s attempts to accelerate the government’s adoption of post-quantum cryptography. Biden told agencies to start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable” and to start requiring vendors to use it when technologically possible. Trump eliminated those requirements, leaving only a Biden requirement that CISA maintain “a list of product categories in which products that support post-quantum cryptography … are widely available.” Trump also eliminated instructions for the departments of State and Commerce to encourage key foreign allies and overseas industries to adopt NIST’s PQC algorithms. The EO dropped many other provisions of Biden’s January directive, including one requiring agencies to start testing phishing-resistant authentication technologies, one requiring NIST to advise other agencies on internet routing security and one requiring agencies to use strong email encryption. Trump also cut language directing the Office of Management and Budget to advise agencies on addressing risks related to IT vendor concentration. In his January order, Biden ordered agencies to explore and encourage the use of digital identity documents to prevent fraud, including in public benefits programs. Trump eliminated those initiatives, calling them “inappropriate.”  Trump also tweaked the language of Obama-era sanctions authorities targeting people involved in cyberattacks on the U.S., specifying that the Treasury Department can only sanction foreigners for these activities. The White House said Trump’s change would prevent the power’s “misuse against domestic political opponents.” Amid the whirlwind of changes, Trump left one major Biden-era cyber program intact: a Federal Communications Commission project, modeled on the Energy Star program, that will apply government seals of approval to technology products that undergo security testing by federally accredited labs. Trump preserved the language in Biden’s order that requires companies selling internet-of-things devices to the federal government to go through the FCC program by January 2027. #trump #scraps #biden #software #security
    WWW.CYBERSECURITYDIVE.COM
    Trump scraps Biden software security, AI, post-quantum encryption efforts in new executive order
    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) Friday that scratched or revised several of his Democratic predecessors’ major cybersecurity initiatives. “Just days before President Trump took office, the Biden Administration attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy,” the White House said in a fact sheet about Trump’s new directive, referring to projects that Biden launched with his Jan. 15 executive order. Trump’s new EO eliminates those projects, which would have required software vendors to prove their compliance with new federal security standards, prioritized research and testing of artificial intelligence for cyber defense and accelerated the rollout of encryption that withstands the future code-cracking powers of quantum computers. “President Trump has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure,” the White House said in its fact sheet, “including focusing relentlessly on technical and organizational professionalism to improve the security and resilience of the nation’s information systems and networks.” Major cyber regulation shift Trump’s elimination of Biden’s software security requirements for federal contractors represents a significant government reversal on cyber regulation. Following years of major cyberattacks linked to insecure software, the Biden administration sought to use federal procurement power to improve the software industry’s practices. That effort began with Biden’s 2021 cyber order and gained strength in 2024, and then Biden officials tried to add teeth to the initiative before leaving office in January. But as it eliminated that project on Friday, the Trump administration castigated Biden’s efforts as “imposing unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Trump’s order eliminates provisions from Biden’s directive that would have required federal contractors to submit “secure software development attestations,” along with technical data to back up those attestations. Also now eradicated are provisions that would have required the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to verify vendors’ attestations, required the Office of the National Cyber Director to publish the results of those reviews and encouraged ONCD to refer companies whose attestations fail a review to the Justice Department “for action as appropriate.” Trump’s order leaves in place a National Institute of Standards and Technology collaboration with industry to update NIST’s Software Software Development Framework, but it eliminates parts of Biden’s order that would have incorporated those SSDF updates into security requirements for federal vendors. In a related move, Trump eliminated provisions of his predecessor’s order that would have required NIST to “issue guidance identifying minimum cybersecurity practices” (based on a review of globally accepted standards) and required federal contractors to follow those practices. AI security cut Trump also took an axe to Biden requirements related to AI and its ability to help repel cyberattacks. He scrapped a Biden initiative to test AI’s power to “enhance cyber defense of critical infrastructure in the energy sector,” as well as one that would have directed federal research programs to prioritize topics like the security of AI-powered coding and “methods for designing secure AI systems.” The EO also killed a provision would have required the Pentagon to “use advanced AI models for cyber defense.” On quantum computing, Trump’s directive significantly pares back Biden’s attempts to accelerate the government’s adoption of post-quantum cryptography. Biden told agencies to start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable” and to start requiring vendors to use it when technologically possible. Trump eliminated those requirements, leaving only a Biden requirement that CISA maintain “a list of product categories in which products that support post-quantum cryptography … are widely available.” Trump also eliminated instructions for the departments of State and Commerce to encourage key foreign allies and overseas industries to adopt NIST’s PQC algorithms. The EO dropped many other provisions of Biden’s January directive, including one requiring agencies to start testing phishing-resistant authentication technologies, one requiring NIST to advise other agencies on internet routing security and one requiring agencies to use strong email encryption. Trump also cut language directing the Office of Management and Budget to advise agencies on addressing risks related to IT vendor concentration. In his January order, Biden ordered agencies to explore and encourage the use of digital identity documents to prevent fraud, including in public benefits programs. Trump eliminated those initiatives, calling them “inappropriate.”  Trump also tweaked the language of Obama-era sanctions authorities targeting people involved in cyberattacks on the U.S., specifying that the Treasury Department can only sanction foreigners for these activities. The White House said Trump’s change would prevent the power’s “misuse against domestic political opponents.” Amid the whirlwind of changes, Trump left one major Biden-era cyber program intact: a Federal Communications Commission project, modeled on the Energy Star program, that will apply government seals of approval to technology products that undergo security testing by federally accredited labs. Trump preserved the language in Biden’s order that requires companies selling internet-of-things devices to the federal government to go through the FCC program by January 2027.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    709
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Letterheads Per L'Horta: An Intimate International Meet

    Events

    Letterheads Per L'Horta: An Intimate International Meet
    The masses amass in Almàssera for an inspiring four days painting in the Valencian sun.

    Better Letters

    Jun 5, 2025
    • 8 min read

    Letterheads Per L'Horta in Almàssera, Valencia, 1–4 May 2025.

    This time last month, over 45 guests from 11 countries were feeling the post-Letterheads blues after four days in the small town of Almàssera, just outside Valencia, Spain. Letterheads Per L'Horta was organised by Nico Barrios, and it was a wonderfully intimate experience, with a host of activities to enjoy and learn from.Something that made the event feel extra special was the involvement of people from the local community, who were just as much a part of it as those that had travelled from as far afield as Australia and Mexico to attend. This included bidding in the auction for a souvenir of the long weekend in May spent with friends, new and old.Almàssera and L'HortaAlmàssera is a small town set within a vast expanse of small-scale agricultural production. While each plot of land is known as a huerto, they are collectively referred to as horta, which doesn't really have a direct translation. The Horta Nordthat surrounds Almàssera is the largest and best surviving example of this type of terrain.We were based in the town's Museu de l'Horta, which consists of an old and a modern building with a yard between them that housed the panel jam area.A traditional alqueríain l'horta, a view down on the meet, and the tents protecting the panel jam area.Inside the modern building there was a selection of pieces from Juan Nava's 2022 Gráfica Urbana de Valenciaexhibition. There was also a trip down memory lane for Valencian locals in the form of another exhibition, L'ombra de les lletres, with photos of signs spanning the period 1880–2000.L'ombra de les lletres was originally curated by Tomàs Gorria in 2024. Pedal PowerAlmàssera, and the city of Valencia, are easily navigated by bicycle, which Nico used to facilitate a cycling tour of the old signs of l'horta. In addition to the stories of the individual companies advertised, he was also able to identify the painters responsible for some of the signs.The tour took guests into the heart of l'horta, which, as a largely agricultural area, boasts a surprising number of old and hand-painted signs.Panel JammingAfter a windy first day or so, the event was bathed in beautiful Mediterranean sunshine. The protective tents were essential, although those in the middle had to carefully manage their colour schemes in light of the red hue they cast across the easels.Getting painty in l'horta: Nathan Collis, Xis Gomes, Maria Cano, Mike Meyer, and Loughlin Brady Smith.Panels set to dry in the early evening sun.WorkshopsAcross the first three days, Thursday to Saturday, there was a series of lettering and calligraphy workshops that were also open to those outside of the Letterheads event proper.Pictured are workshops being led by Ester Gradolí, Juanjo López, and Joan Quiros.TV TimeThe meet was profiled in the local newspaper on the day before it opened, and then a TV crew turned up to cover proceedings.Local press coverage and Letterheads Per L'Horta host Nico Barrios being interviewed for the TV report.

    0:00

    /1:34

    Letterheads Per L'Horta makes the news! If you look closely at the top of the paper that Daniel Esteve Carbonell is working on it says "Collons de rètol"which clearly escaped the attention of the censors.
    Talks & DemosIn addition to workshops, the museum building also hosted a busy programme of talks. These were delivered by the Asociación de Diseñadores de la Comunidad Valenciana, the errorerror.studio creative typography studio, graphic designer Juan Nava, and type designer Juanjo López.Juan Nava talking about the evolution of his Letras Recuperadasproject, previously featured here at bl.ag online.One of the highlights was hearing from veteran local sign painters Ricardo Moreno and Paco Vivó, both of whom appear in the Tipos Que Importan film that was screened. They were interviewed by Nico and brought a host of goods with them, including their sign kits, photographic portfolios, work samples, books, and other reference materials.Ricardoand Pacowere mobbed after talking about their lives on the brush in Valencia.Following the session, everyone moved outside to watch Paco Vivó paint one of the motifs that he produced many times in his career: the Pepsi-Cola bottle top.Paco Vivó painted his demonstration piece on a canvas which was subsequently sold in the auction.Meanwhile, over in the town square, David Vanderh had set up his screenprinting station to apply Nico's event design in a single colour to any material that the public brought to him.The live screenprinting was in just blue, while the official event t-shirt combined this with a striking orange.Panels on Show and on SaleOn the Sunday, a small exhibition was mounted with the panels that folks could bid on in the auction. This was an open invitation, with those from the neighbourhood stopping by to inspect and snag some goods.Panels getting ready for new owners in the charity auction.Panels by Veronika Skilte, Joe Coleman, Rachel E Millar, and Victor Calligraphy.This panelby Joe Coleman was inspired by the truck lettering that was a lucky incidental on the earlier cycling tour.The auction raised over 2,000€ in support of those affected by the devastating DANA floods in 2024.The assembled crowd were ready with open wallets as the auction got underway.The auction was expertly hosted by Mike Meyer and Nico Barrios, with Nil Muge logging all the winning bids and accounting for the cash payments.Thank YouAs with any event, the photos never show the challenges that must be overcome behind the scenes. Some of these were substantial but Nico took each one in his stride, maintaining a smile throughout. Thank you, Nico, for facilitating these special days that will live long in the collective memory.Letterheads Per L'Horta host Nico Barrios.Letterheads Per L'Horta was hosted by Nico Barrios with the support of the following organisations: AVV Carraixet d'Almàssera; Ajuntament d'Almàssera; BLAG; A.S. Handover; 1 Shot; ADCV; gráffica. Also check out the event's dedicated Instagram account, @letterheadsperlhorta, for even more photos and videos. More LetterheadsFuture Meets
    #letterheads #per #l039horta #intimate #international
    Letterheads Per L'Horta: An Intimate International Meet
    Events Letterheads Per L'Horta: An Intimate International Meet The masses amass in Almàssera for an inspiring four days painting in the Valencian sun. Better Letters Jun 5, 2025 • 8 min read Letterheads Per L'Horta in Almàssera, Valencia, 1–4 May 2025. This time last month, over 45 guests from 11 countries were feeling the post-Letterheads blues after four days in the small town of Almàssera, just outside Valencia, Spain. Letterheads Per L'Horta was organised by Nico Barrios, and it was a wonderfully intimate experience, with a host of activities to enjoy and learn from.Something that made the event feel extra special was the involvement of people from the local community, who were just as much a part of it as those that had travelled from as far afield as Australia and Mexico to attend. This included bidding in the auction for a souvenir of the long weekend in May spent with friends, new and old.Almàssera and L'HortaAlmàssera is a small town set within a vast expanse of small-scale agricultural production. While each plot of land is known as a huerto, they are collectively referred to as horta, which doesn't really have a direct translation. The Horta Nordthat surrounds Almàssera is the largest and best surviving example of this type of terrain.We were based in the town's Museu de l'Horta, which consists of an old and a modern building with a yard between them that housed the panel jam area.A traditional alqueríain l'horta, a view down on the meet, and the tents protecting the panel jam area.Inside the modern building there was a selection of pieces from Juan Nava's 2022 Gráfica Urbana de Valenciaexhibition. There was also a trip down memory lane for Valencian locals in the form of another exhibition, L'ombra de les lletres, with photos of signs spanning the period 1880–2000.L'ombra de les lletres was originally curated by Tomàs Gorria in 2024. Pedal PowerAlmàssera, and the city of Valencia, are easily navigated by bicycle, which Nico used to facilitate a cycling tour of the old signs of l'horta. In addition to the stories of the individual companies advertised, he was also able to identify the painters responsible for some of the signs.The tour took guests into the heart of l'horta, which, as a largely agricultural area, boasts a surprising number of old and hand-painted signs.Panel JammingAfter a windy first day or so, the event was bathed in beautiful Mediterranean sunshine. The protective tents were essential, although those in the middle had to carefully manage their colour schemes in light of the red hue they cast across the easels.Getting painty in l'horta: Nathan Collis, Xis Gomes, Maria Cano, Mike Meyer, and Loughlin Brady Smith.Panels set to dry in the early evening sun.WorkshopsAcross the first three days, Thursday to Saturday, there was a series of lettering and calligraphy workshops that were also open to those outside of the Letterheads event proper.Pictured are workshops being led by Ester Gradolí, Juanjo López, and Joan Quiros.TV TimeThe meet was profiled in the local newspaper on the day before it opened, and then a TV crew turned up to cover proceedings.Local press coverage and Letterheads Per L'Horta host Nico Barrios being interviewed for the TV report. 0:00 /1:34 Letterheads Per L'Horta makes the news! If you look closely at the top of the paper that Daniel Esteve Carbonell is working on it says "Collons de rètol"which clearly escaped the attention of the censors. Talks & DemosIn addition to workshops, the museum building also hosted a busy programme of talks. These were delivered by the Asociación de Diseñadores de la Comunidad Valenciana, the errorerror.studio creative typography studio, graphic designer Juan Nava, and type designer Juanjo López.Juan Nava talking about the evolution of his Letras Recuperadasproject, previously featured here at bl.ag online.One of the highlights was hearing from veteran local sign painters Ricardo Moreno and Paco Vivó, both of whom appear in the Tipos Que Importan film that was screened. They were interviewed by Nico and brought a host of goods with them, including their sign kits, photographic portfolios, work samples, books, and other reference materials.Ricardoand Pacowere mobbed after talking about their lives on the brush in Valencia.Following the session, everyone moved outside to watch Paco Vivó paint one of the motifs that he produced many times in his career: the Pepsi-Cola bottle top.Paco Vivó painted his demonstration piece on a canvas which was subsequently sold in the auction.Meanwhile, over in the town square, David Vanderh had set up his screenprinting station to apply Nico's event design in a single colour to any material that the public brought to him.The live screenprinting was in just blue, while the official event t-shirt combined this with a striking orange.Panels on Show and on SaleOn the Sunday, a small exhibition was mounted with the panels that folks could bid on in the auction. This was an open invitation, with those from the neighbourhood stopping by to inspect and snag some goods.Panels getting ready for new owners in the charity auction.Panels by Veronika Skilte, Joe Coleman, Rachel E Millar, and Victor Calligraphy.This panelby Joe Coleman was inspired by the truck lettering that was a lucky incidental on the earlier cycling tour.The auction raised over 2,000€ in support of those affected by the devastating DANA floods in 2024.The assembled crowd were ready with open wallets as the auction got underway.The auction was expertly hosted by Mike Meyer and Nico Barrios, with Nil Muge logging all the winning bids and accounting for the cash payments.Thank YouAs with any event, the photos never show the challenges that must be overcome behind the scenes. Some of these were substantial but Nico took each one in his stride, maintaining a smile throughout. Thank you, Nico, for facilitating these special days that will live long in the collective memory.Letterheads Per L'Horta host Nico Barrios.Letterheads Per L'Horta was hosted by Nico Barrios with the support of the following organisations: AVV Carraixet d'Almàssera; Ajuntament d'Almàssera; BLAG; A.S. Handover; 1 Shot; ADCV; gráffica. Also check out the event's dedicated Instagram account, @letterheadsperlhorta, for even more photos and videos. More LetterheadsFuture Meets #letterheads #per #l039horta #intimate #international
    BL.AG
    Letterheads Per L'Horta: An Intimate International Meet
    Events Letterheads Per L'Horta: An Intimate International Meet The masses amass in Almàssera for an inspiring four days painting in the Valencian sun. Better Letters Jun 5, 2025 • 8 min read Letterheads Per L'Horta in Almàssera, Valencia, 1–4 May 2025. This time last month, over 45 guests from 11 countries were feeling the post-Letterheads blues after four days in the small town of Almàssera, just outside Valencia, Spain. Letterheads Per L'Horta was organised by Nico Barrios, and it was a wonderfully intimate experience, with a host of activities to enjoy and learn from.Something that made the event feel extra special was the involvement of people from the local community, who were just as much a part of it as those that had travelled from as far afield as Australia and Mexico to attend. This included bidding in the auction for a souvenir of the long weekend in May spent with friends, new and old.Almàssera and L'HortaAlmàssera is a small town set within a vast expanse of small-scale agricultural production. While each plot of land is known as a huerto (allotment), they are collectively referred to as horta, which doesn't really have a direct translation. The Horta Nord (North Horta) that surrounds Almàssera is the largest and best surviving example of this type of terrain.We were based in the town's Museu de l'Horta (Horta Museum), which consists of an old and a modern building with a yard between them that housed the panel jam area.A traditional alquería (farmhouse) in l'horta, a view down on the meet, and the tents protecting the panel jam area.Inside the modern building there was a selection of pieces from Juan Nava's 2022 Gráfica Urbana de Valencia (Urban Graphics of Valencia) exhibition. There was also a trip down memory lane for Valencian locals in the form of another exhibition, L'ombra de les lletres (the shadow of the letters), with photos of signs spanning the period 1880–2000.L'ombra de les lletres was originally curated by Tomàs Gorria in 2024. Pedal PowerAlmàssera, and the city of Valencia, are easily navigated by bicycle, which Nico used to facilitate a cycling tour of the old signs of l'horta. In addition to the stories of the individual companies advertised, he was also able to identify the painters responsible for some of the signs.The tour took guests into the heart of l'horta, which, as a largely agricultural area, boasts a surprising number of old and hand-painted signs.Panel JammingAfter a windy first day or so, the event was bathed in beautiful Mediterranean sunshine. The protective tents were essential, although those in the middle had to carefully manage their colour schemes in light of the red hue they cast across the easels.Getting painty in l'horta: Nathan Collis, Xis Gomes, Maria Cano, Mike Meyer, and Loughlin Brady Smith.Panels set to dry in the early evening sun.WorkshopsAcross the first three days, Thursday to Saturday, there was a series of lettering and calligraphy workshops that were also open to those outside of the Letterheads event proper.Pictured are workshops being led by Ester Gradolí, Juanjo López, and Joan Quiros.TV TimeThe meet was profiled in the local newspaper on the day before it opened, and then a TV crew turned up to cover proceedings.Local press coverage and Letterheads Per L'Horta host Nico Barrios being interviewed for the TV report. 0:00 /1:34 Letterheads Per L'Horta makes the news! If you look closely at the top of the paper that Daniel Esteve Carbonell is working on it says "Collons de rètol" (it's only a fucking sign) which clearly escaped the attention of the censors. Talks & DemosIn addition to workshops, the museum building also hosted a busy programme of talks. These were delivered by the Asociación de Diseñadores de la Comunidad Valenciana (Valencian Graphic Design Association), the errorerror.studio creative typography studio, graphic designer Juan Nava, and type designer Juanjo López.Juan Nava talking about the evolution of his Letras Recuperadas (Recovered Letters) project, previously featured here at bl.ag online.One of the highlights was hearing from veteran local sign painters Ricardo Moreno and Paco Vivó, both of whom appear in the Tipos Que Importan film that was screened. They were interviewed by Nico and brought a host of goods with them, including their sign kits, photographic portfolios, work samples, books, and other reference materials.Ricardo (in glasses) and Paco (with beard) were mobbed after talking about their lives on the brush in Valencia.Following the session, everyone moved outside to watch Paco Vivó paint one of the motifs that he produced many times in his career: the Pepsi-Cola bottle top.Paco Vivó painted his demonstration piece on a canvas which was subsequently sold in the auction.Meanwhile, over in the town square, David Vanderh had set up his screenprinting station to apply Nico's event design in a single colour to any material that the public brought to him.The live screenprinting was in just blue, while the official event t-shirt combined this with a striking orange.Panels on Show and on SaleOn the Sunday, a small exhibition was mounted with the panels that folks could bid on in the auction. This was an open invitation, with those from the neighbourhood stopping by to inspect and snag some goods.Panels getting ready for new owners in the charity auction.Panels by Veronika Skilte (Vermut), Joe Coleman (Mental on the Rental), Rachel E Millar (Rotulos, Gracias), and Victor Calligraphy.This panel (right) by Joe Coleman was inspired by the truck lettering that was a lucky incidental on the earlier cycling tour.The auction raised over 2,000€ in support of those affected by the devastating DANA floods in 2024.The assembled crowd were ready with open wallets as the auction got underway.The auction was expertly hosted by Mike Meyer and Nico Barrios, with Nil Muge logging all the winning bids and accounting for the cash payments.Thank YouAs with any event, the photos never show the challenges that must be overcome behind the scenes. Some of these were substantial but Nico took each one in his stride, maintaining a smile throughout. Thank you, Nico, for facilitating these special days that will live long in the collective memory.Letterheads Per L'Horta host Nico Barrios.Letterheads Per L'Horta was hosted by Nico Barrios with the support of the following organisations: AVV Carraixet d'Almàssera; Ajuntament d'Almàssera; BLAG; A.S. Handover; 1 Shot; ADCV; gráffica. Also check out the event's dedicated Instagram account, @letterheadsperlhorta, for even more photos and videos. More LetterheadsFuture Meets
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    396
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Senior Manager, Accounting at Riot Games

    Senior Manager, AccountingRiot GamesShanghai, China2 hours agoApplyRiot Games was established in 2006 by entrepreneurial gamers who believe that player-focused game development can result in great games. In 2009, Riot released its debut title League of Legends to critical and player acclaim. As the most played video game in the world, over 100 million play every month. Players form the foundation of our community and it’s for them that we continue to evolve and improve the League of Legends experience.We’re looking for humble but ambitious, razor-sharp professionals who can teach us a thing or two. We promise to return the favor. Like us, you take play seriously; you’re passionate about games. We embrace those who see things differently, aren’t afraid to experiment, and who have a healthy disregard for constraints.That's where you come in.As a Senior Manager of Accounting, you will oversee all accounting operations for Riot’s China businesses, ensuring full compliance with both US GAAP and PRC GAAP. Reporting to the Director of Accounting, you will collaborate with global and regional finance teams to ensure timely and accurate reporting, oversee statutory audits, and drive accounting operational excellence. This position blends strategic thinking with hands-on execution, requiring deep technical expertise, strong leadership, and the ability to build effective partnerships with key stakeholders.Job Responsibilities:Manage the financial accounting and reporting function for Riot’s China operations, including statutory filings and internal reportingEnsure compliance with both US GAAP and PRC GAAP; work closely with global accounting to ensure alignment on policies and practicesReview journal entries, account reconciliations, and trend analysis for accounts such as revenue, prepaid expenses, fixed assets, accruals, accounts payable and other areasLead the monthly, quarterly, and annual close processes, ensuring completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of financial reportingDevelop, implement, and maintain robust internal controls and accounting policiesReview contracts and significant transactions to assess accounting implications and ensure appropriate treatmentLead accounting transformation initiatives, including process improvements, system implementations, and the adoption of automation technologies or scalable software solutionsServe as a trusted advisor to cross-functional teams including Legal, Finance, Tax, and Business OperationsRequired Qualifications:Bachelor’s degree in Accounting or Finance10+ years of progressive accounting experience including Big 4 public accounting and multinational corporate accounting in a leadership roleStrong understanding of both US GAAP and PRC GAAPHands-on experience managing accounting close, internal controls, and policy implementationProven ability to lead and grow a high-performing teamCPA or equivalentBilingual in Mandarin and EnglishDesired Qualifications:Operational experience in technology, media, or gaming industriesExperience with ERP systemsPrior experience supporting global or regional accounting transformation projectsDon’t forget to include a resume and cover letter. We receive a lot of applications, but we’ll notice a fun, well-written intro that shows us you take play seriously.
    Create Your Profile — Game companies can contact you with their relevant job openings.
    Apply
    #senior #manager #accounting #riot #games
    Senior Manager, Accounting at Riot Games
    Senior Manager, AccountingRiot GamesShanghai, China2 hours agoApplyRiot Games was established in 2006 by entrepreneurial gamers who believe that player-focused game development can result in great games. In 2009, Riot released its debut title League of Legends to critical and player acclaim. As the most played video game in the world, over 100 million play every month. Players form the foundation of our community and it’s for them that we continue to evolve and improve the League of Legends experience.We’re looking for humble but ambitious, razor-sharp professionals who can teach us a thing or two. We promise to return the favor. Like us, you take play seriously; you’re passionate about games. We embrace those who see things differently, aren’t afraid to experiment, and who have a healthy disregard for constraints.That's where you come in.As a Senior Manager of Accounting, you will oversee all accounting operations for Riot’s China businesses, ensuring full compliance with both US GAAP and PRC GAAP. Reporting to the Director of Accounting, you will collaborate with global and regional finance teams to ensure timely and accurate reporting, oversee statutory audits, and drive accounting operational excellence. This position blends strategic thinking with hands-on execution, requiring deep technical expertise, strong leadership, and the ability to build effective partnerships with key stakeholders.Job Responsibilities:Manage the financial accounting and reporting function for Riot’s China operations, including statutory filings and internal reportingEnsure compliance with both US GAAP and PRC GAAP; work closely with global accounting to ensure alignment on policies and practicesReview journal entries, account reconciliations, and trend analysis for accounts such as revenue, prepaid expenses, fixed assets, accruals, accounts payable and other areasLead the monthly, quarterly, and annual close processes, ensuring completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of financial reportingDevelop, implement, and maintain robust internal controls and accounting policiesReview contracts and significant transactions to assess accounting implications and ensure appropriate treatmentLead accounting transformation initiatives, including process improvements, system implementations, and the adoption of automation technologies or scalable software solutionsServe as a trusted advisor to cross-functional teams including Legal, Finance, Tax, and Business OperationsRequired Qualifications:Bachelor’s degree in Accounting or Finance10+ years of progressive accounting experience including Big 4 public accounting and multinational corporate accounting in a leadership roleStrong understanding of both US GAAP and PRC GAAPHands-on experience managing accounting close, internal controls, and policy implementationProven ability to lead and grow a high-performing teamCPA or equivalentBilingual in Mandarin and EnglishDesired Qualifications:Operational experience in technology, media, or gaming industriesExperience with ERP systemsPrior experience supporting global or regional accounting transformation projectsDon’t forget to include a resume and cover letter. We receive a lot of applications, but we’ll notice a fun, well-written intro that shows us you take play seriously. Create Your Profile — Game companies can contact you with their relevant job openings. Apply #senior #manager #accounting #riot #games
    Senior Manager, Accounting at Riot Games
    Senior Manager, AccountingRiot GamesShanghai, China2 hours agoApplyRiot Games was established in 2006 by entrepreneurial gamers who believe that player-focused game development can result in great games. In 2009, Riot released its debut title League of Legends to critical and player acclaim. As the most played video game in the world, over 100 million play every month. Players form the foundation of our community and it’s for them that we continue to evolve and improve the League of Legends experience.We’re looking for humble but ambitious, razor-sharp professionals who can teach us a thing or two. We promise to return the favor. Like us, you take play seriously; you’re passionate about games. We embrace those who see things differently, aren’t afraid to experiment, and who have a healthy disregard for constraints.That's where you come in.As a Senior Manager of Accounting, you will oversee all accounting operations for Riot’s China businesses, ensuring full compliance with both US GAAP and PRC GAAP. Reporting to the Director of Accounting, you will collaborate with global and regional finance teams to ensure timely and accurate reporting, oversee statutory audits, and drive accounting operational excellence. This position blends strategic thinking with hands-on execution, requiring deep technical expertise, strong leadership, and the ability to build effective partnerships with key stakeholders.Job Responsibilities:Manage the financial accounting and reporting function for Riot’s China operations, including statutory filings and internal reportingEnsure compliance with both US GAAP and PRC GAAP; work closely with global accounting to ensure alignment on policies and practicesReview journal entries, account reconciliations, and trend analysis for accounts such as revenue, prepaid expenses, fixed assets, accruals, accounts payable and other areasLead the monthly, quarterly, and annual close processes, ensuring completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of financial reportingDevelop, implement, and maintain robust internal controls and accounting policiesReview contracts and significant transactions to assess accounting implications and ensure appropriate treatmentLead accounting transformation initiatives, including process improvements, system implementations, and the adoption of automation technologies or scalable software solutionsServe as a trusted advisor to cross-functional teams including Legal, Finance, Tax, and Business OperationsRequired Qualifications:Bachelor’s degree in Accounting or Finance10+ years of progressive accounting experience including Big 4 public accounting and multinational corporate accounting in a leadership roleStrong understanding of both US GAAP and PRC GAAPHands-on experience managing accounting close, internal controls, and policy implementationProven ability to lead and grow a high-performing teamCPA or equivalent (US, PRC or international certification)Bilingual in Mandarin and EnglishDesired Qualifications:Operational experience in technology, media, or gaming industriesExperience with ERP systems (Yonsuite and Oracle preferred)Prior experience supporting global or regional accounting transformation projectsDon’t forget to include a resume and cover letter. We receive a lot of applications, but we’ll notice a fun, well-written intro that shows us you take play seriously. Create Your Profile — Game companies can contact you with their relevant job openings. Apply
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    294
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs: A decades-old tax rule helped build America's tech economy. A quiet change under Trump helped dismantle it

    For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoftand Metato much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Applelaunched its first computer in 1976. Googleincorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office— Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/BloombergIt’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazonalso laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforceeliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilioslashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopifycut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbasereduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.
    #hidden #time #bomb #tax #code
    The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs: A decades-old tax rule helped build America's tech economy. A quiet change under Trump helped dismantle it
    For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoftand Metato much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Applelaunched its first computer in 1976. Googleincorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office— Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/BloombergIt’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazonalso laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforceeliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilioslashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopifycut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbasereduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen. #hidden #time #bomb #tax #code
    QZ.COM
    The hidden time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs: A decades-old tax rule helped build America's tech economy. A quiet change under Trump helped dismantle it
    For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    368
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • How much does your road weigh?

    The ways roads are used, with ever larger and heavier vehicles, have dramatic consequences on the environment – and electric cars are not the answer
    Today, there is an average of 37 tonnes of road per inhabitant of the planet. The weight of the road network alone accounts for a third of all construction worldwide, and has grown exponentially in the 20th century. There is 10 times more bitumen, in mass, than there are living animals. Yet growth in the mass of roads does not automatically correspond to population growth, or translate into increased length of road networks. In wealthier countries, the number of metres of road per inhabitant has actually fallen over the last century. In the United States, for instance, between 1905 and 2015 the length of the network increased by a factor of 1.75 and the population by a factor of 3.8, compared with 21 for the mass of roads. Roads have become wider and, above all, much thicker. To understand the evolution of these parameters, and their environmental impact, it is helpful to trace the different stages in the life of the motorway. 
    Until the early 20th century, roads were used for various modes of transport, including horses, bicycles, pedestrians and trams; as a result of the construction of railways, road traffic even declined in some European countries in the 19th century. The main novelty brought by the motorway was that they would be reserved for motorised traffic. In several languages, the word itself – autostrada, autobahn, autoroute or motorway – speaks of this exclusivity. 
    Roman roads varied from simple corduroy roads, made by placing logs perpendicular to the direction of the road over a low or swampy area, to paved roads, as this engraving from Jean Rondelet’s 19th‑century Traité Théorique et Pratique de l’Art de Bâtir shows. Using deep roadbeds of tamped rubble as an underlying layer to ensure that they kept dry, major roads were often stone-paved, metalled, cambered for drainage and flanked by footpaths, bridleways and drainage ditches

    Like any major piece of infrastructure, motorways became the subject of ideological discourse, long before any shovel hit the ground; politicians underlined their role in the service of the nation, how they would contribute to progress, development, the economy, modernity and even civilisation. The inauguration ceremony for the construction of the first autostrada took place in March 1923, presided over by Italy’s prime minister Benito Mussolini. The second major motorway programme was announced by the Nazi government in 1933, with a national network planned to be around 7,000 kilometres long. In his 2017 book Driving Modernity: Technology, Experts, Politics, and Fascist Motorways, 1922–1943, historian Massimo Moraglio shows how both programmes were used as propaganda tools by the regimes, most notably at the international road congresses in Milan in 1926 and Munich in 1934. In the European postwar era, the notion of the ‘civilising’ effect of roads persevered. In 1962, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then‑secretary of state for finances and later president of France, argued that expanded motorways would bring ‘progress, activity and life’.
    This discourse soon butted up against the realities of how motorways affected individuals and communities. In his 2011 book Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, Peter D Norton explores the history of resistance to the imposition of motorised traffic in North American cities. Until the 1920s, there was a perception that cars were dangerous newcomers, and that other street and road uses – especially walking – were more legitimate. Cars were associated with speed and danger; restrictions on motorists, especially speed limits, were routine. 
    Built between 1962 and 1970, the Westway was London’s first urban motorway, elevated above the city to use less land. Construction workers are seen stressing the longitudinal soffit cables inside the box section of the deck units to achieve the bearing capacity necessary to carry the weight of traffic
    Credit: Heritage Image Partnership Ltd / Alamy
    To gain domination over cities, motor vehicles had to win priority over other street uses. Rather than restricting the flow of vehicles to minimise the risk of road accidents, a specific infrastructure was dedicated to them: both inner‑city roads and motorways. Cutting through the landscape, the motorway had, by definition, to be inaccessible by any other means of transport than motorised vehicle. To guarantee the fluidity of traffic, the construction of imposing bridges, tunnels and interchanges is necessary, particularly at junctions with other roads, railways or canals. This prioritisation of one type of user inevitably impacts journeys for others; as space is fragmented, short journeys are lengthened for those trying to navigate space by foot or bicycle. 
    Enabling cars to drive at around 110–140km/h on motorways, as modern motorways do, directly impacts their design, with major environmental effects: the gradient has to be gentle, the curves longand the lanes wide, to allow vehicles to overtake each other safely. As much terrain around the world is not naturally suited to these requirements, the earthworks are considerable: in France, the construction of a metre of highway requires moving some 100m3 of earth, and when the soil is soft, full of clay or peat, it is made firmer with hydraulic lime and cement before the highway’s first sub‑layers are laid. This material cost reinforces the criticisms levelled in the 1960s, by the likes of Jane Jacobs and Lewis Mumford, at urban planning that prioritised the personal motor vehicle.
    When roads are widened to accommodate more traffic, buildings are sliced and demolished, as happened in Dhaka’s Bhasantek Road in 2021
    Credit: Dhaka Tribune
    Once built, the motorway is never inert. Motorway projects today generally anticipate future expansion, and include a large median strip of 12m between the lanes, with a view to adding new ones. Increases in speed and vehicle sizes have also translated into wider lanes, from 2.5m in 1945 to 3.5m today. The average contemporary motorway footprint is therefore 100 square metres per linear metre. Indeed, although the construction of a road is supposed to reduce congestion, it also generates new traffic and, therefore, new congestion. This is the principle of ‘induced traffic’: the provision of extra road capacity results in a greater volume of traffic.
    The Katy Freeway in Texas famously illustrates this dynamic. Built as a regular six‑lane highway in the 1960s, it was called the second worst bottleneck in the nation by 2004, wasting 25 million hours a year of commuter time. In 2011, the state of Texas invested USbillion to fix this problem, widening the road to a staggering total of 26 lanes. By 2014, the morning and afternoon traffic had both increased again. The vicious circle based on the induced traffic has been empirically demonstrated in most countries: traffic has continued to increase and congestion remains unresolved, leading to ever-increasing emissions. In the EU, transport is the only sector where greenhouse gas emissions have increased in the past three decades, rising 33.5 per cent between 1990 and 2019. Transport accounts for around a fifth of global CO₂ emissions today, with three quarters of this figure linked to road transport.
    Houston’s Katy Freeway is one of the world’s widest motorways, with 26 lanes. Its last expansion, in 2008, was initially hailed as a success, but within five years, peak travel times were longer than before the expansion – a direct illustration of the principle of induced traffic
    Credit: Smiley N Pool / Houston Chronicle / Getty
    Like other large transport infrastructures such as ports and airports, motorways are designed for the largest and heaviest vehicles. Engineers, road administrations and politicians have known since the 1950s that one truck represents millions of cars: the impact of a vehicle on the roadway is exponential to its weight – an online ‘road damage calculator’ allows you to compare the damage done by different types of vehicles to the road. Over the years, heavier and heavier trucks have been authorised to operate on roads: from 8‑tonne trucks in 1945 to 44 tonnes nowadays. The European Parliament adopted a revised directive on 12 March 2024 authorising mega‑trucks to travel on European roads; they can measure up to 25 metres and weigh up to 60 tonnes, compared with the previous limits of 18.75 metres and 44 tonnes. This is a political and economic choice with considerable material effects: thickness, rigidity of sub‑bases and consolidation of soil and subsoil with lime and cement. Altogether, motorways are 10 times thicker than large roads from the late 19th century. In France, it takes an average of 30 tonnes of sand and aggregate to build one linear metre of motorway, 100 times more than cement and bitumen. 
    The material history of road networks is a history of quarrying and environmental damage. The traces of roads can also be seen in rivers emptied of their sediment, the notches of quarries in the hills and the furrows of dredgers extracting sand from the seabed. This material extraction, arguably the most significant in human history, has dramatic ecological consequences for rivers, groundwater tables, the rise of sea levels and saltwater in farmlands, as well as biodiversity. As sand is ubiquitous and very cheap, the history of roads is also the history of a local extractivism and environmental conflicts around the world. 
    Shoving and rutting is the bulging and rippling of the pavement surface. Once built, roads require extensive maintenance – the heavier the vehicles, the quicker the damage. From pothole repair to the full resurfacing of a road, maintenance contributes to keeping road users safe
    Credit: Yakov Oskanov / Alamy
    Once roads are built and extended, they need to be maintained to support the circulation of lorries and, by extension, commodities. This stage is becoming increasingly important as rail freight, which used to be important in countries such as France and the UK, is declining, accounting for no more than 10 per cent of the transport of commodities. Engineers might judge that a motorway is destined to last 20 years or so, but this prognosis will be significantly reduced with heavy traffic. The same applies to the thousands of motorway bridges: in the UK, nearly half of the 9,000 highway bridges are in poor condition; in France, 7 per cent of the 12,000 bridges are in danger of collapsing, as did Genoa’s Morandi bridge in 2018. If only light vehicles drove on it, this infrastructure would last much longer.
    This puts into perspective governments’ insistence on ‘greening’ the transport sector by targeting CO2 emissions alone, typically by promoting the use of electric vehicles. Public policies prioritising EVs do nothing to change the mass of roads or the issue of their maintenance – even if lorries were to run on clean air, massive quarrying would still be necessary. A similar argument plays out with regard to canals and ports, which have been constantly widened and deepened for decades to accommodate ever-larger oil tankers or container ships. The simple operation of these infrastructures, dimensioned for the circulation of commodities and not humans, requires permanent dredging of large volumes. The environmental problem of large transport infrastructure goes beyond the type of energy used: it is, at its root, free and globalised trade.
    ‘The material life cycle of motorways is relentless: constructing, maintaining, widening, thickening, repairing’
    As both a material and ideological object, the motorway fixes certain political choices in the landscape. Millions of kilometres of road continue to be asphalted, widened and thickened around the world to favour cars and lorries. In France, more than 80 per cent of today’s sand and aggregate extraction is used for civil engineering works – the rest goes to buildings. Even if no more buildings, roads or other infrastructures were to be built, phenomenal quantities of sand and aggregates would still need to be extracted in order to maintain existing road networks. The material life cycle of motorways is relentless: constructing, maintaining, widening, thickening, repairing, adding new structures such as wildlife crossings, more maintaining. 
    Rising traffic levels are always deemed positive by governments for a country’s economy and development. As Christopher Wells shows in his 2014 book Car Country: An Environmental History, car use becomes necessary in an environment where everything has been planned for the car, from the location of public services and supermarkets to residential and office areas. Similarly, when an entire economy is based on globalised trade and just‑in‑time logistics, the lorry and the container ship become vital. 
    The final stage in the life of a piece of motorway infrastructure is dismantling. Like the other stages, this one is not a natural outcome but the fruit of political choices – which should be democratic – regarding how we wish to use existing roads. Dismantling, which is essential if we are to put an end to the global extractivism of sand and aggregates, does not mean destruction: if bicycles and pedestrians were to use them instead, maintenance would be minimal. This final stage requires a paradigm shift away from the eternal adaptation to increasing traffic. Replacing cars and lorries with public transport and rail freight would be a first step. But above all, a different political and spatial organisation of economic activities is necessary, and ultimately, an end to globalised, just-in-time trade and logistics.
    In 1978, a row of cars parked at a shopping centre in Connecticut was buried under a thick layer of gooey asphalt. The Ghost Parking Lot, one of the first projects by James Wines’ practice SITE, became a playground for skateboarders until it was removed in 2003. Images of this lumpy landscape serve as allegories of the damage caused by reliance on the automobile
    Credit: Project by SITE

    Lead image: Some road damage is beyond repair, as when a landslide caused a large chunk of the Gothenburg–Oslo motorway to collapse in 2023. Such dramatic events remind us of both the fragility of these seemingly robust infrastructures, and the damage that extensive construction does to the planet. Credit: Hanna Brunlöf Windell / TT / Shutterstock

    2025-06-03
    Reuben J Brown

    Share
    #how #much #does #your #road
    How much does your road weigh?
    The ways roads are used, with ever larger and heavier vehicles, have dramatic consequences on the environment – and electric cars are not the answer Today, there is an average of 37 tonnes of road per inhabitant of the planet. The weight of the road network alone accounts for a third of all construction worldwide, and has grown exponentially in the 20th century. There is 10 times more bitumen, in mass, than there are living animals. Yet growth in the mass of roads does not automatically correspond to population growth, or translate into increased length of road networks. In wealthier countries, the number of metres of road per inhabitant has actually fallen over the last century. In the United States, for instance, between 1905 and 2015 the length of the network increased by a factor of 1.75 and the population by a factor of 3.8, compared with 21 for the mass of roads. Roads have become wider and, above all, much thicker. To understand the evolution of these parameters, and their environmental impact, it is helpful to trace the different stages in the life of the motorway.  Until the early 20th century, roads were used for various modes of transport, including horses, bicycles, pedestrians and trams; as a result of the construction of railways, road traffic even declined in some European countries in the 19th century. The main novelty brought by the motorway was that they would be reserved for motorised traffic. In several languages, the word itself – autostrada, autobahn, autoroute or motorway – speaks of this exclusivity.  Roman roads varied from simple corduroy roads, made by placing logs perpendicular to the direction of the road over a low or swampy area, to paved roads, as this engraving from Jean Rondelet’s 19th‑century Traité Théorique et Pratique de l’Art de Bâtir shows. Using deep roadbeds of tamped rubble as an underlying layer to ensure that they kept dry, major roads were often stone-paved, metalled, cambered for drainage and flanked by footpaths, bridleways and drainage ditches Like any major piece of infrastructure, motorways became the subject of ideological discourse, long before any shovel hit the ground; politicians underlined their role in the service of the nation, how they would contribute to progress, development, the economy, modernity and even civilisation. The inauguration ceremony for the construction of the first autostrada took place in March 1923, presided over by Italy’s prime minister Benito Mussolini. The second major motorway programme was announced by the Nazi government in 1933, with a national network planned to be around 7,000 kilometres long. In his 2017 book Driving Modernity: Technology, Experts, Politics, and Fascist Motorways, 1922–1943, historian Massimo Moraglio shows how both programmes were used as propaganda tools by the regimes, most notably at the international road congresses in Milan in 1926 and Munich in 1934. In the European postwar era, the notion of the ‘civilising’ effect of roads persevered. In 1962, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then‑secretary of state for finances and later president of France, argued that expanded motorways would bring ‘progress, activity and life’. This discourse soon butted up against the realities of how motorways affected individuals and communities. In his 2011 book Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, Peter D Norton explores the history of resistance to the imposition of motorised traffic in North American cities. Until the 1920s, there was a perception that cars were dangerous newcomers, and that other street and road uses – especially walking – were more legitimate. Cars were associated with speed and danger; restrictions on motorists, especially speed limits, were routine.  Built between 1962 and 1970, the Westway was London’s first urban motorway, elevated above the city to use less land. Construction workers are seen stressing the longitudinal soffit cables inside the box section of the deck units to achieve the bearing capacity necessary to carry the weight of traffic Credit: Heritage Image Partnership Ltd / Alamy To gain domination over cities, motor vehicles had to win priority over other street uses. Rather than restricting the flow of vehicles to minimise the risk of road accidents, a specific infrastructure was dedicated to them: both inner‑city roads and motorways. Cutting through the landscape, the motorway had, by definition, to be inaccessible by any other means of transport than motorised vehicle. To guarantee the fluidity of traffic, the construction of imposing bridges, tunnels and interchanges is necessary, particularly at junctions with other roads, railways or canals. This prioritisation of one type of user inevitably impacts journeys for others; as space is fragmented, short journeys are lengthened for those trying to navigate space by foot or bicycle.  Enabling cars to drive at around 110–140km/h on motorways, as modern motorways do, directly impacts their design, with major environmental effects: the gradient has to be gentle, the curves longand the lanes wide, to allow vehicles to overtake each other safely. As much terrain around the world is not naturally suited to these requirements, the earthworks are considerable: in France, the construction of a metre of highway requires moving some 100m3 of earth, and when the soil is soft, full of clay or peat, it is made firmer with hydraulic lime and cement before the highway’s first sub‑layers are laid. This material cost reinforces the criticisms levelled in the 1960s, by the likes of Jane Jacobs and Lewis Mumford, at urban planning that prioritised the personal motor vehicle. When roads are widened to accommodate more traffic, buildings are sliced and demolished, as happened in Dhaka’s Bhasantek Road in 2021 Credit: Dhaka Tribune Once built, the motorway is never inert. Motorway projects today generally anticipate future expansion, and include a large median strip of 12m between the lanes, with a view to adding new ones. Increases in speed and vehicle sizes have also translated into wider lanes, from 2.5m in 1945 to 3.5m today. The average contemporary motorway footprint is therefore 100 square metres per linear metre. Indeed, although the construction of a road is supposed to reduce congestion, it also generates new traffic and, therefore, new congestion. This is the principle of ‘induced traffic’: the provision of extra road capacity results in a greater volume of traffic. The Katy Freeway in Texas famously illustrates this dynamic. Built as a regular six‑lane highway in the 1960s, it was called the second worst bottleneck in the nation by 2004, wasting 25 million hours a year of commuter time. In 2011, the state of Texas invested USbillion to fix this problem, widening the road to a staggering total of 26 lanes. By 2014, the morning and afternoon traffic had both increased again. The vicious circle based on the induced traffic has been empirically demonstrated in most countries: traffic has continued to increase and congestion remains unresolved, leading to ever-increasing emissions. In the EU, transport is the only sector where greenhouse gas emissions have increased in the past three decades, rising 33.5 per cent between 1990 and 2019. Transport accounts for around a fifth of global CO₂ emissions today, with three quarters of this figure linked to road transport. Houston’s Katy Freeway is one of the world’s widest motorways, with 26 lanes. Its last expansion, in 2008, was initially hailed as a success, but within five years, peak travel times were longer than before the expansion – a direct illustration of the principle of induced traffic Credit: Smiley N Pool / Houston Chronicle / Getty Like other large transport infrastructures such as ports and airports, motorways are designed for the largest and heaviest vehicles. Engineers, road administrations and politicians have known since the 1950s that one truck represents millions of cars: the impact of a vehicle on the roadway is exponential to its weight – an online ‘road damage calculator’ allows you to compare the damage done by different types of vehicles to the road. Over the years, heavier and heavier trucks have been authorised to operate on roads: from 8‑tonne trucks in 1945 to 44 tonnes nowadays. The European Parliament adopted a revised directive on 12 March 2024 authorising mega‑trucks to travel on European roads; they can measure up to 25 metres and weigh up to 60 tonnes, compared with the previous limits of 18.75 metres and 44 tonnes. This is a political and economic choice with considerable material effects: thickness, rigidity of sub‑bases and consolidation of soil and subsoil with lime and cement. Altogether, motorways are 10 times thicker than large roads from the late 19th century. In France, it takes an average of 30 tonnes of sand and aggregate to build one linear metre of motorway, 100 times more than cement and bitumen.  The material history of road networks is a history of quarrying and environmental damage. The traces of roads can also be seen in rivers emptied of their sediment, the notches of quarries in the hills and the furrows of dredgers extracting sand from the seabed. This material extraction, arguably the most significant in human history, has dramatic ecological consequences for rivers, groundwater tables, the rise of sea levels and saltwater in farmlands, as well as biodiversity. As sand is ubiquitous and very cheap, the history of roads is also the history of a local extractivism and environmental conflicts around the world.  Shoving and rutting is the bulging and rippling of the pavement surface. Once built, roads require extensive maintenance – the heavier the vehicles, the quicker the damage. From pothole repair to the full resurfacing of a road, maintenance contributes to keeping road users safe Credit: Yakov Oskanov / Alamy Once roads are built and extended, they need to be maintained to support the circulation of lorries and, by extension, commodities. This stage is becoming increasingly important as rail freight, which used to be important in countries such as France and the UK, is declining, accounting for no more than 10 per cent of the transport of commodities. Engineers might judge that a motorway is destined to last 20 years or so, but this prognosis will be significantly reduced with heavy traffic. The same applies to the thousands of motorway bridges: in the UK, nearly half of the 9,000 highway bridges are in poor condition; in France, 7 per cent of the 12,000 bridges are in danger of collapsing, as did Genoa’s Morandi bridge in 2018. If only light vehicles drove on it, this infrastructure would last much longer. This puts into perspective governments’ insistence on ‘greening’ the transport sector by targeting CO2 emissions alone, typically by promoting the use of electric vehicles. Public policies prioritising EVs do nothing to change the mass of roads or the issue of their maintenance – even if lorries were to run on clean air, massive quarrying would still be necessary. A similar argument plays out with regard to canals and ports, which have been constantly widened and deepened for decades to accommodate ever-larger oil tankers or container ships. The simple operation of these infrastructures, dimensioned for the circulation of commodities and not humans, requires permanent dredging of large volumes. The environmental problem of large transport infrastructure goes beyond the type of energy used: it is, at its root, free and globalised trade. ‘The material life cycle of motorways is relentless: constructing, maintaining, widening, thickening, repairing’ As both a material and ideological object, the motorway fixes certain political choices in the landscape. Millions of kilometres of road continue to be asphalted, widened and thickened around the world to favour cars and lorries. In France, more than 80 per cent of today’s sand and aggregate extraction is used for civil engineering works – the rest goes to buildings. Even if no more buildings, roads or other infrastructures were to be built, phenomenal quantities of sand and aggregates would still need to be extracted in order to maintain existing road networks. The material life cycle of motorways is relentless: constructing, maintaining, widening, thickening, repairing, adding new structures such as wildlife crossings, more maintaining.  Rising traffic levels are always deemed positive by governments for a country’s economy and development. As Christopher Wells shows in his 2014 book Car Country: An Environmental History, car use becomes necessary in an environment where everything has been planned for the car, from the location of public services and supermarkets to residential and office areas. Similarly, when an entire economy is based on globalised trade and just‑in‑time logistics, the lorry and the container ship become vital.  The final stage in the life of a piece of motorway infrastructure is dismantling. Like the other stages, this one is not a natural outcome but the fruit of political choices – which should be democratic – regarding how we wish to use existing roads. Dismantling, which is essential if we are to put an end to the global extractivism of sand and aggregates, does not mean destruction: if bicycles and pedestrians were to use them instead, maintenance would be minimal. This final stage requires a paradigm shift away from the eternal adaptation to increasing traffic. Replacing cars and lorries with public transport and rail freight would be a first step. But above all, a different political and spatial organisation of economic activities is necessary, and ultimately, an end to globalised, just-in-time trade and logistics. In 1978, a row of cars parked at a shopping centre in Connecticut was buried under a thick layer of gooey asphalt. The Ghost Parking Lot, one of the first projects by James Wines’ practice SITE, became a playground for skateboarders until it was removed in 2003. Images of this lumpy landscape serve as allegories of the damage caused by reliance on the automobile Credit: Project by SITE Lead image: Some road damage is beyond repair, as when a landslide caused a large chunk of the Gothenburg–Oslo motorway to collapse in 2023. Such dramatic events remind us of both the fragility of these seemingly robust infrastructures, and the damage that extensive construction does to the planet. Credit: Hanna Brunlöf Windell / TT / Shutterstock 2025-06-03 Reuben J Brown Share #how #much #does #your #road
    WWW.ARCHITECTURAL-REVIEW.COM
    How much does your road weigh?
    The ways roads are used, with ever larger and heavier vehicles, have dramatic consequences on the environment – and electric cars are not the answer Today, there is an average of 37 tonnes of road per inhabitant of the planet. The weight of the road network alone accounts for a third of all construction worldwide, and has grown exponentially in the 20th century. There is 10 times more bitumen, in mass, than there are living animals. Yet growth in the mass of roads does not automatically correspond to population growth, or translate into increased length of road networks. In wealthier countries, the number of metres of road per inhabitant has actually fallen over the last century. In the United States, for instance, between 1905 and 2015 the length of the network increased by a factor of 1.75 and the population by a factor of 3.8, compared with 21 for the mass of roads. Roads have become wider and, above all, much thicker. To understand the evolution of these parameters, and their environmental impact, it is helpful to trace the different stages in the life of the motorway.  Until the early 20th century, roads were used for various modes of transport, including horses, bicycles, pedestrians and trams; as a result of the construction of railways, road traffic even declined in some European countries in the 19th century. The main novelty brought by the motorway was that they would be reserved for motorised traffic. In several languages, the word itself – autostrada, autobahn, autoroute or motorway – speaks of this exclusivity.  Roman roads varied from simple corduroy roads, made by placing logs perpendicular to the direction of the road over a low or swampy area, to paved roads, as this engraving from Jean Rondelet’s 19th‑century Traité Théorique et Pratique de l’Art de Bâtir shows. Using deep roadbeds of tamped rubble as an underlying layer to ensure that they kept dry, major roads were often stone-paved, metalled, cambered for drainage and flanked by footpaths, bridleways and drainage ditches Like any major piece of infrastructure, motorways became the subject of ideological discourse, long before any shovel hit the ground; politicians underlined their role in the service of the nation, how they would contribute to progress, development, the economy, modernity and even civilisation. The inauguration ceremony for the construction of the first autostrada took place in March 1923, presided over by Italy’s prime minister Benito Mussolini. The second major motorway programme was announced by the Nazi government in 1933, with a national network planned to be around 7,000 kilometres long. In his 2017 book Driving Modernity: Technology, Experts, Politics, and Fascist Motorways, 1922–1943, historian Massimo Moraglio shows how both programmes were used as propaganda tools by the regimes, most notably at the international road congresses in Milan in 1926 and Munich in 1934. In the European postwar era, the notion of the ‘civilising’ effect of roads persevered. In 1962, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then‑secretary of state for finances and later president of France, argued that expanded motorways would bring ‘progress, activity and life’. This discourse soon butted up against the realities of how motorways affected individuals and communities. In his 2011 book Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, Peter D Norton explores the history of resistance to the imposition of motorised traffic in North American cities. Until the 1920s, there was a perception that cars were dangerous newcomers, and that other street and road uses – especially walking – were more legitimate. Cars were associated with speed and danger; restrictions on motorists, especially speed limits, were routine.  Built between 1962 and 1970, the Westway was London’s first urban motorway, elevated above the city to use less land. Construction workers are seen stressing the longitudinal soffit cables inside the box section of the deck units to achieve the bearing capacity necessary to carry the weight of traffic Credit: Heritage Image Partnership Ltd / Alamy To gain domination over cities, motor vehicles had to win priority over other street uses. Rather than restricting the flow of vehicles to minimise the risk of road accidents, a specific infrastructure was dedicated to them: both inner‑city roads and motorways. Cutting through the landscape, the motorway had, by definition, to be inaccessible by any other means of transport than motorised vehicle. To guarantee the fluidity of traffic, the construction of imposing bridges, tunnels and interchanges is necessary, particularly at junctions with other roads, railways or canals. This prioritisation of one type of user inevitably impacts journeys for others; as space is fragmented, short journeys are lengthened for those trying to navigate space by foot or bicycle.  Enabling cars to drive at around 110–140km/h on motorways, as modern motorways do, directly impacts their design, with major environmental effects: the gradient has to be gentle (4 per cent), the curves long (1.5km in radius) and the lanes wide, to allow vehicles to overtake each other safely. As much terrain around the world is not naturally suited to these requirements, the earthworks are considerable: in France, the construction of a metre of highway requires moving some 100m3 of earth, and when the soil is soft, full of clay or peat, it is made firmer with hydraulic lime and cement before the highway’s first sub‑layers are laid. This material cost reinforces the criticisms levelled in the 1960s, by the likes of Jane Jacobs and Lewis Mumford, at urban planning that prioritised the personal motor vehicle. When roads are widened to accommodate more traffic, buildings are sliced and demolished, as happened in Dhaka’s Bhasantek Road in 2021 Credit: Dhaka Tribune Once built, the motorway is never inert. Motorway projects today generally anticipate future expansion (from 2×2 to 2×3 to 2×4 lanes), and include a large median strip of 12m between the lanes, with a view to adding new ones. Increases in speed and vehicle sizes have also translated into wider lanes, from 2.5m in 1945 to 3.5m today. The average contemporary motorway footprint is therefore 100 square metres per linear metre. Indeed, although the construction of a road is supposed to reduce congestion, it also generates new traffic and, therefore, new congestion. This is the principle of ‘induced traffic’: the provision of extra road capacity results in a greater volume of traffic. The Katy Freeway in Texas famously illustrates this dynamic. Built as a regular six‑lane highway in the 1960s, it was called the second worst bottleneck in the nation by 2004, wasting 25 million hours a year of commuter time. In 2011, the state of Texas invested US$2.8 billion to fix this problem, widening the road to a staggering total of 26 lanes. By 2014, the morning and afternoon traffic had both increased again. The vicious circle based on the induced traffic has been empirically demonstrated in most countries: traffic has continued to increase and congestion remains unresolved, leading to ever-increasing emissions. In the EU, transport is the only sector where greenhouse gas emissions have increased in the past three decades, rising 33.5 per cent between 1990 and 2019. Transport accounts for around a fifth of global CO₂ emissions today, with three quarters of this figure linked to road transport. Houston’s Katy Freeway is one of the world’s widest motorways, with 26 lanes. Its last expansion, in 2008, was initially hailed as a success, but within five years, peak travel times were longer than before the expansion – a direct illustration of the principle of induced traffic Credit: Smiley N Pool / Houston Chronicle / Getty Like other large transport infrastructures such as ports and airports, motorways are designed for the largest and heaviest vehicles. Engineers, road administrations and politicians have known since the 1950s that one truck represents millions of cars: the impact of a vehicle on the roadway is exponential to its weight – an online ‘road damage calculator’ allows you to compare the damage done by different types of vehicles to the road. Over the years, heavier and heavier trucks have been authorised to operate on roads: from 8‑tonne trucks in 1945 to 44 tonnes nowadays. The European Parliament adopted a revised directive on 12 March 2024 authorising mega‑trucks to travel on European roads; they can measure up to 25 metres and weigh up to 60 tonnes, compared with the previous limits of 18.75 metres and 44 tonnes. This is a political and economic choice with considerable material effects: thickness, rigidity of sub‑bases and consolidation of soil and subsoil with lime and cement. Altogether, motorways are 10 times thicker than large roads from the late 19th century. In France, it takes an average of 30 tonnes of sand and aggregate to build one linear metre of motorway, 100 times more than cement and bitumen.  The material history of road networks is a history of quarrying and environmental damage. The traces of roads can also be seen in rivers emptied of their sediment, the notches of quarries in the hills and the furrows of dredgers extracting sand from the seabed. This material extraction, arguably the most significant in human history, has dramatic ecological consequences for rivers, groundwater tables, the rise of sea levels and saltwater in farmlands, as well as biodiversity. As sand is ubiquitous and very cheap, the history of roads is also the history of a local extractivism and environmental conflicts around the world.  Shoving and rutting is the bulging and rippling of the pavement surface. Once built, roads require extensive maintenance – the heavier the vehicles, the quicker the damage. From pothole repair to the full resurfacing of a road, maintenance contributes to keeping road users safe Credit: Yakov Oskanov / Alamy Once roads are built and extended, they need to be maintained to support the circulation of lorries and, by extension, commodities. This stage is becoming increasingly important as rail freight, which used to be important in countries such as France and the UK, is declining, accounting for no more than 10 per cent of the transport of commodities. Engineers might judge that a motorway is destined to last 20 years or so, but this prognosis will be significantly reduced with heavy traffic. The same applies to the thousands of motorway bridges: in the UK, nearly half of the 9,000 highway bridges are in poor condition; in France, 7 per cent of the 12,000 bridges are in danger of collapsing, as did Genoa’s Morandi bridge in 2018. If only light vehicles drove on it, this infrastructure would last much longer. This puts into perspective governments’ insistence on ‘greening’ the transport sector by targeting CO2 emissions alone, typically by promoting the use of electric vehicles (EVs). Public policies prioritising EVs do nothing to change the mass of roads or the issue of their maintenance – even if lorries were to run on clean air, massive quarrying would still be necessary. A similar argument plays out with regard to canals and ports, which have been constantly widened and deepened for decades to accommodate ever-larger oil tankers or container ships. The simple operation of these infrastructures, dimensioned for the circulation of commodities and not humans, requires permanent dredging of large volumes. The environmental problem of large transport infrastructure goes beyond the type of energy used: it is, at its root, free and globalised trade. ‘The material life cycle of motorways is relentless: constructing, maintaining, widening, thickening, repairing’ As both a material and ideological object, the motorway fixes certain political choices in the landscape. Millions of kilometres of road continue to be asphalted, widened and thickened around the world to favour cars and lorries. In France, more than 80 per cent of today’s sand and aggregate extraction is used for civil engineering works – the rest goes to buildings. Even if no more buildings, roads or other infrastructures were to be built, phenomenal quantities of sand and aggregates would still need to be extracted in order to maintain existing road networks. The material life cycle of motorways is relentless: constructing, maintaining, widening, thickening, repairing, adding new structures such as wildlife crossings, more maintaining.  Rising traffic levels are always deemed positive by governments for a country’s economy and development. As Christopher Wells shows in his 2014 book Car Country: An Environmental History, car use becomes necessary in an environment where everything has been planned for the car, from the location of public services and supermarkets to residential and office areas. Similarly, when an entire economy is based on globalised trade and just‑in‑time logistics (to the point that many service economies could not produce their own personal protective equipment in the midst of a pandemic), the lorry and the container ship become vital.  The final stage in the life of a piece of motorway infrastructure is dismantling. Like the other stages, this one is not a natural outcome but the fruit of political choices – which should be democratic – regarding how we wish to use existing roads. Dismantling, which is essential if we are to put an end to the global extractivism of sand and aggregates, does not mean destruction: if bicycles and pedestrians were to use them instead, maintenance would be minimal. This final stage requires a paradigm shift away from the eternal adaptation to increasing traffic. Replacing cars and lorries with public transport and rail freight would be a first step. But above all, a different political and spatial organisation of economic activities is necessary, and ultimately, an end to globalised, just-in-time trade and logistics. In 1978, a row of cars parked at a shopping centre in Connecticut was buried under a thick layer of gooey asphalt. The Ghost Parking Lot, one of the first projects by James Wines’ practice SITE, became a playground for skateboarders until it was removed in 2003. Images of this lumpy landscape serve as allegories of the damage caused by reliance on the automobile Credit: Project by SITE Lead image: Some road damage is beyond repair, as when a landslide caused a large chunk of the Gothenburg–Oslo motorway to collapse in 2023. Such dramatic events remind us of both the fragility of these seemingly robust infrastructures, and the damage that extensive construction does to the planet. Credit: Hanna Brunlöf Windell / TT / Shutterstock 2025-06-03 Reuben J Brown Share
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    153
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Meta raises the bar for Apple’s AI glasses ambitions

    Today, Meta shareda few new details about Aria Gen 2, its next-generation experimental smart glasses.
    While they’re still not meant for consumers, the hardware show just how fast Meta is moving and how far ahead it is thinking when it comes to the future of wearables, AI, and spatial computing. It also signals how quickly Apple will have to work if it really intends to do more than simply try to catch up. Again.

    Aria Gen 2
    Designed as a research platform for augmented reality, AI, and robotics, Aria Gen 2 packs a full eye-tracking system that monitors “gaze per eye, vergence point, blink detection, pupil center estimation, pupil diameter, corneal center, etc.”

    It also features multiple computer vision cameras that enable 3D hand and object tracking, which Meta says is precise enough to train robotic hands. Interestingly, Apple has just published a study on this subject.
    Inside the nosepad, there’s a PPG heart rate sensorand a contact microphone that improves audio capture in loud environments. And unlike the Aria Gen 1, the frame folds.
    It is also lighter than before, and available in eight sizes “accounting for a number of human factors including head breadth and nose bridge variation.”
    Other hardware includes:

    12 MP RGB camera
    7 spatial microphones
    Ambient light sensor
    Accelerometer and gyroscope
    Stereo speakers
    USB-C port

    Meta calls Aria Gen 2 a “testbed,” and it sure looks more like a pair of computer glasses, rather than just… glasses. But it’s hard to look at this device and not foresee people wearing something like this in real life sooner rather than later.
    Open vs. private prototyping
    As Meta iterates in public, Apple is reportedly aiming to enter this space by the end of next year. Per Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman, Tim Cook is “hell-bent on creating an industry-leading product before Meta can.”
    Whether Apple will actually succeed in leapfrogging Meta and launch an industry-leading product remains to be seen. But much like with AI, Apple’s biggest challenge will be to move fast enough not to let cutting-edge tech become obsolete beforeit finally hits the market.

    Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed. 

    FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel
    #meta #raises #bar #apples #glasses
    Meta raises the bar for Apple’s AI glasses ambitions
    Today, Meta shareda few new details about Aria Gen 2, its next-generation experimental smart glasses. While they’re still not meant for consumers, the hardware show just how fast Meta is moving and how far ahead it is thinking when it comes to the future of wearables, AI, and spatial computing. It also signals how quickly Apple will have to work if it really intends to do more than simply try to catch up. Again. Aria Gen 2 Designed as a research platform for augmented reality, AI, and robotics, Aria Gen 2 packs a full eye-tracking system that monitors “gaze per eye, vergence point, blink detection, pupil center estimation, pupil diameter, corneal center, etc.” It also features multiple computer vision cameras that enable 3D hand and object tracking, which Meta says is precise enough to train robotic hands. Interestingly, Apple has just published a study on this subject. Inside the nosepad, there’s a PPG heart rate sensorand a contact microphone that improves audio capture in loud environments. And unlike the Aria Gen 1, the frame folds. It is also lighter than before, and available in eight sizes “accounting for a number of human factors including head breadth and nose bridge variation.” Other hardware includes: 12 MP RGB camera 7 spatial microphones Ambient light sensor Accelerometer and gyroscope Stereo speakers USB-C port Meta calls Aria Gen 2 a “testbed,” and it sure looks more like a pair of computer glasses, rather than just… glasses. But it’s hard to look at this device and not foresee people wearing something like this in real life sooner rather than later. Open vs. private prototyping As Meta iterates in public, Apple is reportedly aiming to enter this space by the end of next year. Per Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman, Tim Cook is “hell-bent on creating an industry-leading product before Meta can.” Whether Apple will actually succeed in leapfrogging Meta and launch an industry-leading product remains to be seen. But much like with AI, Apple’s biggest challenge will be to move fast enough not to let cutting-edge tech become obsolete beforeit finally hits the market. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel #meta #raises #bar #apples #glasses
    9TO5MAC.COM
    Meta raises the bar for Apple’s AI glasses ambitions
    Today, Meta shared (via The Verge) a few new details about Aria Gen 2, its next-generation experimental smart glasses. While they’re still not meant for consumers, the hardware show just how fast Meta is moving and how far ahead it is thinking when it comes to the future of wearables, AI, and spatial computing. It also signals how quickly Apple will have to work if it really intends to do more than simply try to catch up. Again. Aria Gen 2 Designed as a research platform for augmented reality, AI, and robotics, Aria Gen 2 packs a full eye-tracking system that monitors “gaze per eye, vergence point, blink detection, pupil center estimation, pupil diameter, corneal center, etc.” It also features multiple computer vision cameras that enable 3D hand and object tracking, which Meta says is precise enough to train robotic hands. Interestingly, Apple has just published a study on this subject. Inside the nosepad, there’s a PPG heart rate sensor (like the Apple Watch) and a contact microphone that improves audio capture in loud environments. And unlike the Aria Gen 1, the frame folds. It is also lighter than before, and available in eight sizes “accounting for a number of human factors including head breadth and nose bridge variation.” Other hardware includes: 12 MP RGB camera 7 spatial microphones Ambient light sensor Accelerometer and gyroscope Stereo speakers USB-C port Meta calls Aria Gen 2 a “testbed,” and it sure looks more like a pair of computer glasses, rather than just… glasses. But it’s hard to look at this device and not foresee people wearing something like this in real life sooner rather than later. Open vs. private prototyping As Meta iterates in public (yes, with bulky, expensive and commercially unviable prototypes), Apple is reportedly aiming to enter this space by the end of next year. Per Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman, Tim Cook is “hell-bent on creating an industry-leading product before Meta can.” Whether Apple will actually succeed in leapfrogging Meta and launch an industry-leading product remains to be seen. But much like with AI, Apple’s biggest challenge will be to move fast enough not to let cutting-edge tech become obsolete before (or rather, if) it finally hits the market. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    169
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Handle your business’s accounting like a pro—Intuit QuickBooks is now over 60% off

    TL;DR: Accounting can be costly, but small business owners can now score pro-level accounting tools with a one-time payment of for Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024.
    For small business owners seeking a reliable and cost-effective accounting solution, Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024 is now offering a lifetime license for a one-time payment of. This version provides robust features designed to streamline your business’s financial management without the burden of recurring subscription fees.​
    Let’s dive into what QuickBooks comes with to simplify your accounting needs:

    Enhanced reporting: Access advanced reporting tools, including custom dashboards and reports, to gain deeper insights into your business finances.​
    Inventory management: Track inventory with improved reports and manage stock more efficiently to prevent shortages or overbuying.
    Data security: Your business can become vulnerable to bad actors, which is why QuickBooks has AES 256-bit encryption—the industry-leading security standard—to ensure your financial data is protected.
    User-friendly interface: Navigate through an updated and intuitive interface, all designed to make it easy to manage your business accounting tasks.​

    With a lifetime license, you’ll never need to pay for a pesky subscription again. This version is optimized for Windows 10 and 11, so be sure that your PC’s operating system meets download requirements before purchasing.

    Whether you’re a freelancer, contractor, or small business owner, you can streamline your finance management by grabbing this Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024 lifetime subscription, now available forwhile supplies last.

    Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024for Windows: Lifetime LicenseSee Deal
    StackSocial prices subject to change.
    #handle #your #businesss #accounting #like
    Handle your business’s accounting like a pro—Intuit QuickBooks is now over 60% off
    TL;DR: Accounting can be costly, but small business owners can now score pro-level accounting tools with a one-time payment of for Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024. For small business owners seeking a reliable and cost-effective accounting solution, Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024 is now offering a lifetime license for a one-time payment of. This version provides robust features designed to streamline your business’s financial management without the burden of recurring subscription fees.​ Let’s dive into what QuickBooks comes with to simplify your accounting needs: Enhanced reporting: Access advanced reporting tools, including custom dashboards and reports, to gain deeper insights into your business finances.​ Inventory management: Track inventory with improved reports and manage stock more efficiently to prevent shortages or overbuying. Data security: Your business can become vulnerable to bad actors, which is why QuickBooks has AES 256-bit encryption—the industry-leading security standard—to ensure your financial data is protected. User-friendly interface: Navigate through an updated and intuitive interface, all designed to make it easy to manage your business accounting tasks.​ With a lifetime license, you’ll never need to pay for a pesky subscription again. This version is optimized for Windows 10 and 11, so be sure that your PC’s operating system meets download requirements before purchasing. Whether you’re a freelancer, contractor, or small business owner, you can streamline your finance management by grabbing this Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024 lifetime subscription, now available forwhile supplies last. Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024for Windows: Lifetime LicenseSee Deal StackSocial prices subject to change. #handle #your #businesss #accounting #like
    WWW.PCWORLD.COM
    Handle your business’s accounting like a pro—Intuit QuickBooks is now over 60% off
    TL;DR: Accounting can be costly, but small business owners can now score pro-level accounting tools with a one-time payment of $250 for Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024. For small business owners seeking a reliable and cost-effective accounting solution, Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024 is now offering a lifetime license for a one-time payment of $249.99 (reg. $699). This version provides robust features designed to streamline your business’s financial management without the burden of recurring subscription fees.​ Let’s dive into what QuickBooks comes with to simplify your accounting needs: Enhanced reporting: Access advanced reporting tools, including custom dashboards and reports, to gain deeper insights into your business finances.​ Inventory management: Track inventory with improved reports and manage stock more efficiently to prevent shortages or overbuying. Data security: Your business can become vulnerable to bad actors, which is why QuickBooks has AES 256-bit encryption—the industry-leading security standard—to ensure your financial data is protected. User-friendly interface: Navigate through an updated and intuitive interface, all designed to make it easy to manage your business accounting tasks.​ With a lifetime license, you’ll never need to pay for a pesky subscription again. This version is optimized for Windows 10 and 11, so be sure that your PC’s operating system meets download requirements before purchasing. Whether you’re a freelancer, contractor, or small business owner, you can streamline your finance management by grabbing this Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024 lifetime subscription, now available for $249.99 (reg. $699) while supplies last. Intuit QuickBooks Desktop Pro Plus 2024 (1 User) for Windows: Lifetime LicenseSee Deal StackSocial prices subject to change.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos