One effect of cutting US and UK aid is that we hear about some of the work they did like HIV prevention, vaccines, nutrition, and now wildlife conservation. I'm still curious if the public perceive these as important issues to fund globally? Any polling on this?

www.ft.com/content/8339...

During my undergrad the extent of digital distraction was Pro Evolution soccer with flatmates. Now as a PhD student and human being I'd argue that the ability to manage online tools is a critical and very difficult life skill - as we need to negotiate these tools.

on.ft.com/4m7PLaX

US crop and livestock exports to China are worth about $25bn and any tariffs would likely divert more trade to Brazil, with environmental risks. Interestingly, agricultural trade is actually quite bi-lateral and sticky so lost markets won't easily return to the US if future tariffs removed.

There's no climate ambition without addressing food and forests... annual emissions from net forest conversion in Brazil are about 650Mt (FAOSTAT) a figure larger than the UK's entire economy. And this is going to get worse as tariffs mean China turns more to Brazil for food and feed imports.

1) I found that the fundamental concept behind international aid - that we have a moral duty to provide "the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress" to all to be one of the great ideas in modern society.

Rubio terminated 5800 USAID contracts – more than 90% of its foreign aid programs – in defiance of the courts.

Here’s a list of just some of the lifesaving awards that were terminated. Nearly all were Congressionally mandated. They’ve saved millions of lives. 🧵