The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 4 2026 (IPS) - On November 2, the United States launched a series of limited, defensive strikes on Iranian targets on Qeshm Island and strategic areas along the Strait of Hormuz. Fired in response to earlier strikes from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on U.S. aircraft and drones over the Strait, U.S. President Trump noted that the operation does not signal a broader escalation of hostilities and that a diplomatic solution could still be reached.
“I’m not looking to, you know, kill lots of people, but if we have to, we’ll have to. But I’m not looking to do that. And we’re very strong right now,” Trump told Fox News on November 3. “Every ship is at the bottom of the sea. They had 288 airplanes. Every airplane is laying on small little pieces, tiny little pieces all over the runways of Iran. They have no airplanes.”
“They have no anti-aircraft. We took some out last night. It’s just a minor attack. It wasn’t war. They built an anti-aircraft facility. It took them about two months. We watched it get built; as soon as it was completed, we hit it last night very nicely,” he continued.
Occurring on the eve of the U.S. midterm elections, the strikes contradict Trump’s previous statement that the U.S. would not strike Iran ahead of the vote. The U.S.’s role in the Iran War has proven to be increasingly unpopular domestically, largely due to rising fuel prices and economic shocks resulting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This has created significant headwinds for the Republican Party as it aims to consolidate control over Congress.
The strikes, launched with no warning, came as Iran announced a two-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume nuclear talks with Washington. Iranian officials previously stated that the plan could be enacted within one week if the U.S. met seven of its core conditions. This includes lifting the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports and coastal areas, establishing a shipping route for the reopened Strait agreed upon by Iran and Oman, removing U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil, and agreeing to a ceasefire that extends to Lebanon.
On November 3, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, Speaker of Iran’s Parliament and chief negotiator, declared that Iran had “delivered a firm and rational response” to Washington, adding that “the ball is now in America’s court” to accept its conditions and prevent further escalation. He warned that Iran’s military is readily prepared to retaliate against future attacks from the U.S.
“If Washington makes another strategic miscalculation, it should know that this time, it will face a new battlefield and will find itself even more desperate than it is today,” he cautioned.
Regional officials in the Middle East reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged Trump to intensify military strikes, citing concerns over Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the need to establish absolute deterrence before Iran can rebuild its capabilities. Danny Danon, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, rejected these claims, stating that the U.S. is making its own foreign policy decisions without Israeli influence.
Before the strikes, U.S. Vice President JD Vance told reporters on November 2 that both he and the president felt “pretty good” about the prospects of reaching a negotiated settlement with Tehran.
“The Iranians are always a little unpredictable, and as the president always says, he retains kinetic options. He retains non-kinetic options, but we’ve certainly made some progress. We’ll see if we can make some more,” said Vance. “Having destroyed their nuclear program, we want to make sure they don’t rebuild it or try to rebuild it. That’s what matters most to the United States. We do think that there is a pathway there, but it really does require a firm commitment and a verifiable commitment that they don’t rebuild that nuclear program,” he added.
Hours earlier, Trump told reporters at the reopening of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington that Iran reportedly “want(s) to make a deal, and that could happen.” He added that Tehran previously requested Washington stop targeting its leaders, with Trump affirming that the U.S. would comply.
On November 3, Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, stated that Washington’s response to Iran’s demands was unsatisfactory, casting doubts that mediation efforts from Pakistan and Qatar have been effective.
“America’s response to Iran’s rights and demands was not convincing,” Rezaei wrote in a statement shared to X (formerly known as Twitter). “They must fully and explicitly address Iran’s seven conditions and act upon them; only in this case will the Strait of Hormuz be reopened.”
On November 2, Iranian authorities announced plans to train a paramilitary force of over 1 million volunteers amid fears of renewed hostilities. Ali Kowsari, deputy head of training for the Basij—a paramilitary force affiliated with the IRGC—announced that starting this week, 1,5000 training bases across the country will aim to train 1 million “sacrificial volunteers.” This follows the previous openings of similar facilities in Tehran in August and September.
IPS UN Bureau Report
SUVA, Fiji, Nov 4 2026 (IPS) - The Pacific Ocean connects thousands of islands, and understanding how ocean acidification is unfolding across the region requires more than individual research projects or monitoring stations.
Scientists need observations from different island environments, collected over time, to understand how seawater chemistry is changing and what those changes could mean for marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.
The work is being strengthened through regional collaboration, with Pacific scientists sharing data, technical knowledge and research experience to build a more complete picture of a changing ocean.
Dr Katy Soapi, Pacific Community (SPC) Coordinator for the Pacific Community Centre for Ocean Science and a Pacific scientist, says the broader scientific community is aware that ocean chemistry is changing. The priority is now building local evidence to understand how those changes may affect different island environments.
“What Pacific scientists are now doing is building the local evidence needed to understand how those changes may impact our different island environments,” Soapi said.
“At many of our monitoring sites, we are seeing considerable natural variability in pH over days, months and seasons, which is normal,” she said. “It is important to capture this data over time because coastal waters are influenced by temperature, rainfall, freshwater inputs, biological activity, land-based pollution and local oceanographic conditions.”
PIOAC members with Salesa Nihmei from SPREP and a representative from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) at the 6th International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO₂ World, Tākina Wellington. Credit: SPC
Monitoring programmes are at different stages across the region. Fiji has an established programme, with monitoring in the Suva area since 2023 and data that contribute to Sustainable Development Goal 14.3.1 reporting.
Samoa has received support through access to monitoring equipment, training and technical advice, while the Solomon Islands programme is newer, with scientists from Solomon Islands National University receiving regional and in-country training as they establish the technical capacity for long-term monitoring. Kiribati and Papua New Guinea also have their own monitoring histories and research priorities.
These differences matter when comparing observations across the Pacific.
“This variation is important; a harbour in Fiji, a lagoon in Kiribati, coastal waters in Samoa or reef environments in Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea can experience very different combinations of temperature, rainfall, freshwater input, current, biological activity and human pressure,” Soapi said.
“The Pacific is connected, but it is not environmentally uniform.
“This is why local monitoring is important and why we cannot rely solely on regional or global averages.”
Manibua Rota from the Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources (MFOR), Kiribati, presents on ocean acidification monitoring in Kiribati at the 6th International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO₂ World, Tākina, Wellington. Credit: SPC
Connecting the Science Across the Pacific
The Pacific Islands Ocean Acidification Centre (PIOAC), established in 2021, supports efforts to connect national monitoring programmes and strengthen scientific capacity across the region.
The Centre brings together the SPC, the University of the South Pacific, the University of Otago and Earth Sciences New Zealand, formerly NIWA.
PIOAC’s work spans the Pacific, through joint work and ongoing discussions with nine Pacific Island countries and territories: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Samoa, Tokelau and New Caledonia.
Its work includes providing monitoring equipment, technical advice, training, sensor troubleshooting, data management and quality assurance. It also connects Pacific researchers with international monitoring networks and supports countries in contributing data to regional and global reporting processes.
For scientists working in small teams across geographically dispersed islands, this support helps build the technical capacity needed to maintain monitoring programmes and generate reliable data over time.
Azaria Pickering, an ocean monitoring and technical officer at SPC in Fiji, says regional cooperation has changed how scientists approach monitoring.
“We’ve moved from monitoring our waters as individual countries to building a collective understanding of what’s happening across our Pacific Ocean,” she said.
“Through the Pacific Islands Ocean Acidification Centre and regional partnerships, we’ve created a community where knowledge is shared and challenges are solved together.”
She said the use of common equipment, methods and training was helping countries strengthen their monitoring programmes at home.
“We’re beginning to close critical data gaps across the region and use that evidence to engage our governments, shape national priorities and bring the Pacific’s experience of ocean acidification into global conversations, including at COP.”
For Dr Aleluia Taise of the National University of Samoa, the research is closely connected to the future of Pacific communities.
“As Pacific Islander marine scientists, we believe it is our responsibility as citizens and custodians of the Pacific Ocean to address priority issues affecting our livelihoods and wellbeing,” she said.
Taise says there remains a critical lack of scientific evidence needed to understand the effects of ocean acidification on coral reefs and coastal ecosystems.
“Research must be supported by stronger institutional backing, policy alignment and collaboration with regional and international partners to ensure it can continue.”
Azaria Pickering from SPC selects macroalgae from the holding tank for the biological incubation tests during PIOAC training at the Victoria University of Wellington Coastal Ecology Lab (VUCEL). Credit: SPC
From Measuring Seawater to Understanding Marine Life
While monitoring seawater chemistry provides information about changing ocean conditions, scientists also need to understand how these changes affect marine organisms.
This is the next area of research being developed by Pacific scientists.
In Wellington, scientists from Fiji, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Kiribati took part in biological experiments training from 5 to 9 October, gaining practical experience in studying how marine organisms respond to ocean acidification and higher temperatures.
The training is intended to strengthen research connecting changes in seawater chemistry with their potential effects on corals, shellfish and other marine organisms.
Soapi said biological research would help scientists develop studies around locally important species and better understand the implications for reefs, fisheries and livelihoods.
“Monitoring seawater chemistry tells us how conditions are changing, while biological research helps us understand what those changes could mean for the organisms that support our reefs, fisheries and livelihoods,” she said.
For Dr Lindon Havimana of Solomon Islands National University, the research is also about ensuring scientific knowledge reaches communities before the impacts become more pronounced.
His interest in ocean acidification research stems from a responsibility to understand, anticipate and communicate changes taking place in the ocean and to consider how communities can prepare for a threat whose impacts may not yet be fully visible.
“I believe that the greatest value of science lies not only in understanding environmental change but also in ensuring that knowledge reaches people early enough to make a difference,” Havimana said.
“As scientists, we have a responsibility to bridge the gap between scientific discovery and community preparedness, transforming evidence into awareness, awareness into action, and action into resilience.”
He said the implications extended beyond ocean chemistry to the health of marine ecosystems, coastal fisheries, food security and the continuation of traditional practices.
Participants from Samoa, Kiribati and Solomon Islands remove their monitored species after a 30-minute incubation at different pH and temperature conditions on Day 1 of the experiment during PIOAC training. Credit: SPC
Taking Pacific Research to the International Stage
These regional efforts were represented at the sixth International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO₂ World, held in Wellington, New Zealand, from 13 to 16 October.
The symposium brought together the international scientific community under the theme Moving from Understanding to Action using Multiple Knowledge Systems.
Discussions examined ocean acidification alongside ocean warming, deoxygenation and other pressures affecting marine ecosystems, with a focus on strengthening scientific understanding and connecting research with action.
For Pacific scientists, participation provided an opportunity to present regional research, exchange knowledge and strengthen relationships with the international scientific community.
It also highlighted the challenges facing island countries, including limited monitoring coverage, equipment maintenance, technical expertise and sustained funding.
Dr Kim Currie, an ocean acidification consultant working with SPC, said access to scientific resources differed across Pacific countries.
“Some countries like Fiji, Samoa and the Solomon Islands have the resources to do the careful measurements that are needed, but other countries do not yet have the scientist and equipment necessary to do this work,” she said.
“Working with regional and overseas partners to share knowledge and skills is one important step towards understanding how the Pacific Ocean will cope in the future.”
For Soapi, the importance of that support is also shaped by her own experience as a researcher.
Reflecting on her early work in ocean acidification, she recalled the challenges of deploying monitoring equipment and working in a field where regional scientific support was limited.
“I had received training, but I was nervous about deploying equipment – this was all part and partial of being isolated and being new in a field,” she said.
That experience has stayed with her and influenced her commitment to supporting other Pacific scientists, particularly those working in small teams across large distances.
“For me, coming together means building a Pacific community of scientists who can support each other, share knowledge and collectively understand the changes taking place across our ocean.”
The work underway across the region is still developing. More monitoring, biological research, technical training and sustained support are needed to strengthen the evidence available to Pacific countries.
But by connecting national research programmes and bringing scientists together, the region is building a stronger foundation for understanding ocean acidification.
The aim is not to produce one picture of the entire Pacific but to bring together the different observations and experiences that explain how a changing ocean is affecting individual islands, ecosystems and communities.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Excerpt:
From Fiji and Samoa to the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Papua New Guinea, Pacific scientists are connecting research, monitoring and expertise to better understand how changing ocean chemistry is affecting the region's marine environments.SYDNEY, Nov 4 2026 (IPS) - As in previous elections, the latest Israeli national election offered people no real choice. They had to choose between bad Zionists and good Zionists. Thus, unsurprisingly, there is no clear winner – both major blocs are neck and neck as usual. The only difference this time is the Arab voting power. By uniting and turning out in record numbers, the Arab coalition secured 19 seats (nearly double the 10 it won in 2022), against the Netanyahu-led bloc’s 53 and the Gadi Eisenkot-led bloc’s 48. Neither bloc has a governable majority, so many are looking to the Arab bloc as a kingmaker, either joining formally or supporting one of the blocs on the no-confidence and supply bills. But they are on the horns of a dilemma, caught between a rock and a hard place.
Anis Chowdhury
The Gaza genocide and state-sponsored unprecedented settler violence have made Benjamin Netanyahu and his extreme rightist coalition partners bad Zionists. They have become indefensible to the so-called liberal Zionist friends of apartheid Israel. So, they have pinned their hope on a good Zionist retired General Gadi Eisenkot. To them, General Gadi Eisenkot is a good Zionist, not because he will stop Gaza genocide or ethnic cleansing of the occupied West Bank, but because he will apparently manage it better or make Zionism’s ugly face less visible to the world. So, in the lead-up to Israel’s 27 October election, the liberal Zionists declared this would be “the most consequential” in Israel’s history.
However, there is no good Zionist for the Palestinians or Arabs. The so-called good Zionist Eisenkot served in Netanyahu’s government for eight months during the Gaza genocide. He resigned not because he opposed the Gaza genocide; he differed with Netanyahu only on strategies. So, he is responsible for a long list of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Eisenkot was the Israeli military’s chief of staff when Israeli soldiers massacred nearly 200 unarmed Palestinians in Gaza in 2018. He is credited with being the mastermind of the Israeli’s army’s “Dahiya Doctrine”, which calls for disproportionate force against civilians. Eisenkot opposes Palestinian statehood, wants to perpetuate Israel’s apartheid system, and supports Israel’s illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank.
Eisenkot’s coalition partner, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, entered politics as Netanyahu’s chief of staff. He served in the Sayeret Matkal and Maglan special forces units of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and was accused of involvement in the massacre of more than one hundred Lebanese civilians in Qana in 1996. Bennett has openly called for the extrajudicial killing of Palestinians, while he reportedly told a national security advisor, “If you catch terrorists (i.e., a Palestinian), you simply have to kill them”.
Eisenkot’s other coalition partner, Avigdor Liberman, a former Netanyahu minister, has advocated that Israel’s citizens should sign a loyalty oath or lose their right to vote.
Lieberman justified the killing of at least 189 unarmed Palestinian protesters during the great March of Return in April 2018 by declaring that there are “no innocents in Gaza”.
Another Eisenkot coalition partner, General Yair Golan, considered the most “left-wing”, was previously the army’s deputy chief of staff. He has been one of the most strident advocates of genocidal crimes against Palestinians in Gaza. On 13 October 2023, Golan said in an interview with Ynet: “First of all, close all the electricity switches to Gaza. I think that in this battle, it is forbidden to allow a humanitarian effort. We need to say to them: listen, until the [captives] are released, from our side, you can die from starvation. It’s totally legitimate”. Thus, Golan echoed Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s infamous statement that Gaza would receive “no power, no food, no gas” because Israel is “fighting human animals, and will act accordingly.”
Therefore, the Eisenkot-led coalition cannot offer any hope to the Palestinians. If bad Zionist Netanyahu is a rock, Eisenkot-led anti-Netanyahu is a hard place for them.
No good Zionist
There is simply no good Zionist. As the UK Green Party’s recently adopted motion says, Zionism is a form of racism. Pulitzer Prize winner Benjamin Moser, a Jewish child of Holocaust survivors, exposed the ugly truth about Zionism in his rigorously researched book, Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History.
Another child of Holocaust survivors, political scientist Norman Finkelstein has been more critical of the Zionist project, as contained in his several books, the most recent being Gaza’s Gravediggers: An Inquiry Into Corruption in High Places. His research has exposed the darkest side of the Zionist project, the apartheid state of Israel.
The Devil you know and the Devil you don’t know
The newly found Arab power will be most effective by accelerating the downfall of the apartheid state. This can only happen if the known Devil Netanyahu remains in power and the delusion of good Zionism is buried. Netanyahu is not the problem as the so-called liberal Zionists are trying to present; the problem is the Zionist project itself.
The New York Times insists “Israel has always been two things: a Jewish state and a liberal democracy”. One should not be misled by such nice slogans. An apartheid state cannot be a liberal democracy. It is an oxymoron.
Anis Chowdhury, Emeritus Professor, Western Sydney University (Australia). He held senior UN positions in Bangkok and New York and served as Special Assistant to the Chief Advisor for Finance (with the status and rank of State Minister) in the Professor Yunus-led Interim Government. E-mail: anis.z.chowdhury@gmail.com; a.chowdhury@westernsydney.edu.au
IPS UN Bureau
Nov 3 2026 (IPS) -
Article 109 of the UN Charter provides a mechanism for reviewing the Charter itself. It allows a General Conference of all UN members to be convened by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. As the Article provides, “Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the conference.”
Even if the prospect of amending the Charter is bleak, a review conference could matter. It would give the wider membership a formal forum to set out the changes it seeks and put the five permanent members of the Security Council under public pressure to respond. That political value is reason enough for member states to begin the diplomatic groundwork, despite the formidable obstacles.
Paragraph 3 of Article 109 set a separate, lower threshold for consideration at the General Assembly’s tenth session. If no conference had been held before then, the proposal to call one was to be placed on the Assembly’s agenda, and the conference was to be held if a majority of Assembly members and any seven Security Council members so decided. Acting under that provision in November 1955, the Assembly decided that a review conference “shall be held at an appropriate time,” and the Security Council concurred the following month despite a Soviet vote against. Seventy-one years later, no conference has been held.
The idea has now returned to the diplomatic mainstream. In November 2024 the leaders of Brazil, India and South Africa called for “a wide-ranging reform of the UN Charter, including the convening of a review conference” under Article 109. At the General Assembly this September, Japan’s Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, told the hall that the Charter, “which is now 81 years old, should also be reviewed.” Advocates grouped in the Article 109 Coalition now present a review conference as the most promising route to structural change.
Recent work published by the Toda Peace Institute and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation on reinventing the United Nations has reached a similar diagnosis. Several of the changes the organisation needs would require Charter amendment: a more representative Security Council, limits on the veto, and a Human Rights Council with the standing of a principal organ. That makes the case for Article 109 worth testing against the strongest objection to it.
That objection sits in the second paragraph of Article 109. Any change the conference recommends takes effect only when two-thirds of members ratify it, “including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” With 193 members, that means 129 ratifications, and every one of the five must be among them. The privilege that reform seeks to constrain thus returns at the moment of decision. Any permanent member could take part in years of negotiation and then decline to ratify the result. Sceptics conclude that a conference would raise expectations it cannot meet and leave multilateralism weaker than before.
That is an exacting rule, and some advocates of review pass over it too quickly. No procedural device removes it. Yet Article 108, which governs ordinary amendments, also requires ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members. The incremental path sceptics prefer offers no escape from the veto; it meets it one proposal at a time.
History suggests that permanent members can change position. In December 1963 the General Assembly adopted amendments that enlarged the Security Council from eleven to fifteen members and the Economic and Social Council from eighteen to twenty-seven. France and the Soviet Union voted against, while the United Kingdom and the United States abstained. All five nevertheless ratified, and the amendments entered into force on 31 August 1965. The weight of a membership transformed by decolonisation appears to have altered their calculation. The lesson has limits. Enlarging the Council left the veto untouched, and asking powerful states to surrender privilege is harder than asking them to share a table.
A realistic case for Article 109 therefore has to rest on what a conference can achieve whatever the permanent members decide at the end of the process.
The convening decision itself does not require all five permanent members to assent. Under Article 109(1), a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and votes from any nine Council members can call a conference. The 1955 vote, taken under paragraph 3’s lower thresholds, showed that Soviet opposition did not prevent the Council from concurring. More than 140 of today’s 193 members were not among the 51 states that founded the organisation. A conference would give them a formal voice in reviewing its founding text.
A conference could also generate political commitments that need no Charter ratification. Governments might adopt declarations or agree on interpretations of existing provisions. They could reaffirm Article 27(3), which requires a party to a dispute to abstain from voting on decisions under Chapter VI or paragraph 3 of Article 52, a provision rarely applied in practice. They could build on the General Assembly’s 2022 decision requiring a debate within ten working days after a veto. Such steps would not amend the Charter, but could raise the political cost of obstruction.
The risks run in both directions. Some governments fear that a conference could reopen existing commitments on human rights and gender equality, giving others an opportunity to dilute them. A Charter alteration would require a two-thirds vote in the conference and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent members. Those thresholds would make a regressive amendment difficult to secure, though they would not by themselves prevent non-binding declarations. A careful modalities resolution could define the proposed scope and open the conference by reaffirming the purposes and principles in Articles 1 and 2. Such preparation would take years, which argues for beginning the diplomatic groundwork now.
The strongest argument for Article 109 lies in the alternatives. Security Council reform negotiations have continued since 2009 without agreement on a reform package. Voluntary restraint has not prevented vetoes in the gravest crises. A conference cannot guarantee a revised Charter, but it would give the great majority of states a lawful forum to set out their terms and put each permanent member under pressure to explain its position publicly. The Charter provides this mechanism for review. Member states should decide whether to use it.
Related articles:
Reinventing the United Nations policy brief series
At Hammarskjöld’s Grave, Sixty-Five Years After Ndola
Governing the Ungovernable
Jordan Ryan is a Senior Consultant to the Folke Bernadotte Academy and Senior Counsel (Social Impact) for Hamilton Advisors. He is also a former Vice President for Peace Programs at The Carter Center, where he led strategic planning and implementation of peacebuilding initiatives worldwide from 2015-2018.
This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.
IPS UN Bureau
MEXICO CITY, Nov 3 2026 (IPS) - At first glance, a data centre in Mexico draws little attention, as it is usually housed in an industrial park, out of public view. But, in addition to emitting greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxides, its cooling and fire suppression systems contain substances with strong environmental and health impacts: the so-called “forever chemicals”.
IPS found that at least five data centres operating in Mexico use hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a group of synthetic gases with a global warming potential up to 7,000 times higher than that of CO2, the human-induced gas responsible for global warming. These gases also have an atmospheric lifetime of 15 years, according to data from ATMOsphere, an independent global accelerator for the air conditioning market.
Mexico hosts at least 144 data centres run by 44 providers in 69 cities, but most of the companies do not disclose whether their cooling and fire suppression systems use forever chemicals
Research published by U.S. government institutions has concluded that these gases accumulate in air, water and soil, and can be absorbed by animals and plants through ingestion or contact. They are also highly mobile, to the point of being present in the Arctic and the Himalayas, according to a 2023 study.
Forever chemicals, also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are a large family of over 15,000 synthetic chemicals. They are needed to cool the hundreds of servers housed in data centres, which is key to prevent overheating and interruptions to their operations. However, the extent of their use in Mexico is unknown.
Mexico hosts at least 144 data centres run by 44 providers in 69 cities, but most of the companies do not disclose whether their cooling and fire suppression systems use forever chemicals.
Although Mexico is a party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, an international agreement that entered into force in 2004 and aims to eliminate and restrict the production and use of dangerous chemicals, these substances are not regulated under national law, there is no inventory of contaminated sites and there is no systematic monitoring.
Teresa Roldán, member of the environmental advocacy group Vocer@s de la Madre Tierra in Querétaro, Mexico’s data centre hub in central Mexico, denounces the lack of oversight by the authorities and of transparency by the companies.
“Since they (the data centres) arrived, there has been no clear information, and as a result (the government) has let them operate without any supervision. We know nothing about the chemical substances. (…) They leave us in uncertainty about the substances and the discharges of liquid waste. There is no way they are not contaminating”, she said to IPS.
Roldán and her group have showered state and federal authorities with requests for information on issues such as water use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste management, but the authorities say they do not have the information or refuse to provide it.
Air conditioning system at the data centre of the U.S.-based company HostDime in the western city of Guadalajara. Credit: HostDime
Most of the data centres operating in the country do not have Environmental Impact Assessments describing the type of cooling and fire suppression systems they use. Only a few companies have made the information available on their websites.
For example, the MEX3 data centre of the Mexican corporation KIO Networks, located in Mexico City, explains the operation of a very early smoke detection apparatus (VESDA) that automatically detects smoke even before it is visible and proceeds to extinguish it. It works with the gaseous hydrofluorocarbon FM-200, also known as HFC-227ea or heptafluoropropane.
The KIO MEX5 data centre, in the municipality of Tultitlán, in the state of Mexico, which borders Mexico City, also says it uses a clean agent suppression system. Most clean agents are hydrofluorocarbons, although the company does not specify which one it uses. The same is true of the KIO MTY1 centre, located in the municipality of San Pedro Garza García, next to Monterrey in the state of Nuevo León, northern Mexico.
Clean agent fire suppression systems are normally used instead of water-based systems because of their non-conductive, residue-free properties, while the latter can damage servers.
Novec, an evaporative fluid, has become the popular choice for high-capacity data centres. The substance boils on contact with electronic components and thus absorbs a large amount of latent heat of vaporisation.
The Mx1 Querétaro facility, owned by U.S.-based Equinix Inc., uses Novec 1230 gas in its fire suppression system, which contains PFAS. The U.S.-based 3M, its manufacturer, has announced the discontinuation of Novec to comply with international regulations to eliminate the use of forever chemicals.
The data centre of the binational NGX Networks in Nogales, in the northern state of Sonora, also uses a refrigerant gas containing forever chemicals.
Various scientific studies have found PFAS at the poles and in the oceans. Multiple studies in the United States and Europe link them to cancers of the kidney, pancreas, testicles, uterus and endometrium, as well as to multiple myeloma. They are also considered endocrine disruptors. Their useful life exceeds 20 years. In the PFAS life cycle, the usage stage is the critical one because of its high emissions to the environment.
Hydrofluorocarbons emerged under the Montreal Protocol, which came into force in 1989, to replace gases containing chlorine and bromine that deplete the ozone layer and to meet growing demand for industrial, commercial and residential refrigeration. But these gases are very powerful climate pollutants, which is why they are the target of global reduction, as happened with the halogens covered by the Montreal Protocol.
The risk of chemical contamination clashes with the Mexican government’s promotion of data centres as part of its drive for industrialisation under the National Strategy for Industrialisation and Shared Prosperity, known as Plan México, a mix of energy, technology, pharmaceutical and even food projects.
It also adds to the centres’ high energy and water consumption in places already suffering water stress, such as Mexico City and Querétaro.
The data centre operated by the Mexican company KIO Networks in the central state of Querétaro is located in a populated area, near homes and schools, where air, soil and water pollution can spread. Credit: KIO
Recent research by Leonard Siegel, the California-based non-governmental organisation Center for Public Environmental Oversight executive director, shows that the data centre industry uses PFAS as an alternative to reduce the use of water, the liquid most commonly used in cooling systems.
Like Roldán in Querétaro, Siegel questions the lack of information on the forever chemicals consumed in data centres in the United States.
“The companies are not sharing the information. And we are now more concerned about the planned ones than the ones under construction”, he said to IPS, citing their size, the scale of their operations and, consequently, the type and quantity of equipment required.
In both Mexico and the United States, data centre companies do not disclose the volume of refrigerant they replace each year, the chemical releases during the normal operation of the centres, or the losses during the installation and maintenance of equipment.
Nor is it clear whether forever chemicals contaminate the wastewater discharged by data centres.
PFAS are used in data centres mainly as refrigerant gases and in immersion cooling fluids. The most common cooling method consists of using PFAS gases in a compressor system, like a refrigerator, to cool air or water for the computers.
The problem grows when the degradation of PFAS leads to the formation of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which has appeared in rain, beer, tea and fruit crops, according to a 2024 study by five experts from scientific institutions in Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. TFA alters levels of thyroxine, a thyroid gland hormone that is vital for regulating human metabolism, according to a 2025 study by 11 specialists from Austria.
Racks of servers in the data centre of U.S.-based company Equinix in the state of Querétaro, in central Mexico. Credit: Equinix
Traditional data centres use heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems that include a condenser, whose main function is to convert vapour into liquid or release heat to the external environment. Most air conditioners contain forever chemicals. In the HVAC case, these liquids can be recycled or become part of the liquid waste the facility discharges.
A more advanced setup is the computer room air conditioner (CRAC), which regulates temperature, humidity and airflow using a compressor, an evaporator and a condenser, and is designed for small and medium-sized data centres.
Larger facilities operate computer room air handlers (CRAH), using chilled water from a central chiller plant. These require greater investment in infrastructure but are more efficient, which results in long-term savings, as explained by Exposiciones Industriales de México, organiser of the largest air conditioning trade fair in the country.
Historically, data centre chillers and CRAC and CRAH systems have used the refrigerant gas R-134a, which contains PFAS.
Data centres of companies such as Equinix, KIO and Scala use CRAC or CRAH systems, according to their public reports. The facility of the U.S.-based HostDime, planned to operate in Guadalajara, will have an HVAC system.
The density of a data centre relates to the amount of computing capacity installed in a given area. Data centres currently being built to support the development and operation of artificial intelligence systems can concentrate tens of kilowatts in a single structure.
This gives an idea of the volume of heat to be generated and of the forever chemicals or water needed to cool the servers.
For example, Ascenty-01, Microsoft’s data centre, plans a first phase of four data rooms, out of a total of 10, with a total of 2,992 electronic equipment racks, according to the environmental impact assessment obtained by the Latin American Observatory of Data Centers. Each data room, with a capacity of 2 MW, will have 13 CRAH units, 11 in operation and two on standby.
KIO and Ascenty did not respond to the reporter’s request for comment. The Mexican Association of Data Centres initially replied to the reporter but declined to answer the query on the subject. Nor the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources answered the question about the lack of PFAS regulation in the country.
According to Noemí Quiroz, senior consultant for non-governmental organisation Centro de Estudios e Investigación en Asuntos Públicos (CEIAP), installing data centres without a regulatory framework to identify their positive and negative consequences has been a bad idea.
“There is no regulatory framework for environmental issues or for placement, and there is no standardisation of procedures. The states do not have regulation either. International evidence was not considered. The situation now calls for regulation”, she told IPS.
In an upcoming study, CEIAP assessed all the country’s towns to identify the most suitable ones for building data centres, based on the availability of resources such as water, land, labour and security.
It also analysed the digital policy of the country’s 32 states against 79 standards, seven of them on data centres.
Racks of servers operated by the Mexican company KIO Networks in the central state of Querétaro, which require intensive cooling systems to dissipate the heat generated by the computer equipment. Credit: KIO
In a document submitted to federal authorities, activist Roldán requested a suspension of the operations of all data centres in Querétaro, as well as a moratorium on the approval of new projects, until water, environmental and risk information on substances such as forever chemicals is made public. “What problem are they going to leave us with? We must prevent them before they keep granting more land concessions and electricity”, she warned.
For Siegel, the prospect of facilities with greater computing capacity opens a window to curb further chemical pollution, as he believes that “we are in a situation where we have an opportunity to stop the use of PFAS in cooling before its use begins, but powerful companies are waiting for authorisation for their commercialisation” in the United States.
Specialist Quiroz suggests a national policy that identifies and fills existing regulatory gaps and addresses territorial and energy planning, as well as encouraging the disclosure of information.
“A regulation determined by size (of the facility), with specific criteria and municipal and federal jurisdictions, that establishes comparable indicators for energy, water and resource-use efficiency, through which regulators can learn the characteristics of data centres” she proposed.
While data centres process poisons, answers must emerge from the depths of their powerful systems, as Roldán and Siegel demand: which substances, and in what quantities, they use to cool their computing systems; how much they release into the environment; what they do to prevent these releases; what they do to replace hazardous substances and polluting gases; and whether they will be liable for the environmental damage.
*This investigation was supported by the grant ‘Un Polo a Tierra’ escuela de periodismo para la industrialización verde en México’, sponsored by Periodistas por el Planeta.
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Nov 3 2026 (IPS) - In the run-up to the US midterms, armed federal agents have been knocking on the doors of voters suspected of being non-citizens. Republican-led states have redrawn electoral districts in their party’s favour, removing power from Black voters. Federal agencies have invaded people’s privacy, combing voter rolls for non-citizens while finding hardly any.
The USA increasingly resembles a competitive authoritarian regime, where elections take place and the opposition can win, but the incumbent abuses state power to stack the odds against rivals. The CIVICUS Monitor, which tracks civic freedoms worldwide, downgraded the USA’s civic space to obstructed last December, after placing it on its Watchlist of countries experiencing rapid decline.
For the first time since 2002, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) will not observe a US federal election. On 23 September, the body announced it had not received an invitation, putting the USA on a par with Belarus and Russia, which failed to allow OSCE observers for their latest national elections. Meanwhile, the Carter Center, which has observed over 100 elections worldwide, mostly in fragile and fledgling democracies, is training and deploying volunteer observers in the USA, having first observed a US election in 2020, when it monitored the presidential recount in the US state of Georgia in the face of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat.
Manufactured majorities
Gerrymandering has a long history in US politics, but 2025 brought the first coordinated national gerrymandering campaign. Trump pressured Republican-led states to redraw their maps mid-decade, and several complied. Democrats hit back where they could, and now nine states are voting under new maps that could hand Republicans up to 15 extra seats compared with six for Democrats. This means Republicans could lose a significant share of the vote without it costing them a corresponding number of seats.
In practice, partisan and racial gerrymandering are hard to separate. In the South, where Black voters overwhelmingly back Democrats, maps drawn to eliminate Democratic seats often do so by breaking up districts with substantial numbers of Black voters. It is illegal to dilute minority votes, but the Supreme Court has made it easier to get away with it. On 29 April, it struck down a Louisiana map drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act, ruling that voters must now prove lawmakers intended to discriminate. Louisiana promptly eliminated a majority-Black district. The Justice Department has pledged to review similar districts nationwide.
Voters under suspicion
The administration has built its election agenda on the false claim that large numbers of non-citizens vote. The Justice Department demanded complete voter registration lists from 49 states and the District of Columbia and sued the 31 jurisdictions that refused. All 26 judges who had ruled by mid-October threw out the lawsuits. On 9 October, in a case brought by Common Cause, a federal judge struck down the department’s voter roll collection programme.
The hunt has turned up almost nothing. Trump claimed in July that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had found nearly 16,000 non-citizens registered in Nevada. DHS later confirmed only 185, and Nevada officials found they were all citizens. A database DHS overhauled so states could run bulk checks on voter rolls has made numerous mistakes, leaving some Texan citizens unable to vote in the March primary. Across seven states with 35 million voters, it flagged roughly 4,200 people, around 0.01 per cent of the electorate. A federal judge ruled the overhaul unlawful, but the Supreme Court paused the ruling, and over half the states kept using the database.
The administration has also tried to restrict postal voting, ordering the Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on lists compiled by DHS, and has sued to stop California counting over 20,000 postal ballots. Courts have blocked both for this election.
Intimidation has extended to voters’ homes. Armed DHS agents have gone door to door to question people suspected of voting while ineligible, including naturalised citizens. The DHS stepped up the operation as early voting began, but on 21 October a federal judge ruled that it likely amounted to voter intimidation and barred agents from questioning people until the polls close, a ban an appeals court has kept in force. However, fear has had an impact. In Minnesota, an organisation serving African immigrant communities reported a single new registration this year, compared with hundreds ahead of previous elections.
The decentralised system that withstood Trump’s attempt to overturn his 2020 defeat is under strain. Earlier this year, Trump urged Republicans to ‘nationalize’ voting, arguing that states run elections as agents of the federal government. But the US Constitution says otherwise. The administration has cut close to 1,000 staff from the federal agency that helps election officials fend off cyberattacks, despite warnings of potential foreign interference. Meanwhile, threats and harassment have helped push turnover among local election officials to its highest level in at least 25 years.
Civil society on guard
Civil society is resisting and has won most of its court battles, including those that halted the voter data programme, kept postal voting restrictions on hold and stopped door-to-door visits. The Vote Safe initiative is placing trusted community figures at polling places in four states to reassure voters, and Common Cause has trained over 400 volunteer observers in Texas alone.
This work is, however, under attack. Federal agents have raided a voter registration group’s office without explanation, and the Justice Department has indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center. Funders and financial institutions have distanced themselves from targeted groups, in some cases cutting off donations or banking services. Major law firms have largely stepped back from challenging the administration, leaving most litigation to civil society and small firms.
Civil society is keeping up its work despite the pressure, and that work won’t stop when the polls close. Whether Trump will accept results he doesn’t like is an open question. If results are challenged, the records kept by thousands of volunteer observers may prove vital to ensuring voters’ choices are respected.
Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director of and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.
For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Nov 3 2026 (IPS) - This autumn I have found myself watching the evening news from Europe with a growing sense of recognition. Not of the tear gas or the burning barricades, which I deplore, but of the faces. Teenagers holding hand-painted signs. University students sleeping in tents in city squares. Young people who look, more than anything, tired of waiting.
James Alix Michel
And it has not stayed in France. Italian students have occupied schools and marched under the banner “Let’s reclaim our future.” In Spain and Portugal, young people have pitched tents to protest rents they cannot pay. Belgian students are resisting education cuts and higher tuition fees, and Greek students have chanted for free public education “from Greece to France.” In Serbia, nearly two years of student-led protest has helped bring a change of leadership at the ballot box.
This weekend the wave reached Germany, where a movement calling itself “Gen Z regelt” – roughly, “Gen Z’s got this” – called rallies in more than thirty cities for better schools, affordable lives, climate protection and against a return of compulsory military service.
I can see it spreading. And I think we should all pay attention.
It would be easy to dismiss this as youthful anger, or to reduce it to the images of looting that have accompanied some marches. That would be a mistake. Listen to what the young people are actually saying. A 21-year-old in Rome speaks of single rooms in student housing costing 1,200 euros a month. In Lisbon, students are marching against plans to unfreeze tuition fees that have been capped since 2020. Across the continent, the demands overlap: crumbling schools, unaffordable housing, insecure jobs, the rising cost of fuel and food, a climate crisis they did not cause, and a deep feeling that nobody in power is listening.
Add to this a new anxiety that my generation never faced: artificial intelligence quietly eating away at the entry-level jobs that once gave young graduates their first step on the ladder. It is no wonder that many feel the future has been mortgaged before they have had a chance to live it.
This is a generation that was told to study hard, and it did. It was told education was the path to security. Now it finds the classrooms falling apart, the degrees expensive, the rents impossible, and the promised security nowhere in sight.
What strikes me most is that Europe is not alone. Over the past two years we have seen young people rise in Kenya, in Nepal, in Madagascar – our close neighbour in the Indian Ocean – and elsewhere. The tools are the same – TikTok, encrypted chats, leaderless networks that mobilise in hours – and so is the question: what kind of future are we being offered, and who decided it on our behalf?
In public life I learned that protest is rarely the first choice. It is usually the last, after letters go unanswered and promises are forgotten. When young people take to the streets in such numbers, the ordinary channels of listening have broken down.
In France, President Macron has announced education reforms – a first step, though the young will judge it by results. But reacting to each wave with concessions is not enough. Three things seem to me essential.
First, invest in education as infrastructure, not as an expense to be trimmed in hard times. Cutting school and university budgets simply transfers the debt to the next generation in another form.
Second, treat housing and the cost of living as questions of fairness between generations. When young adults cannot afford a home or a family, a society is eroding its own foundations.
Third, bring young people into the room as genuine partners, not as a photo opportunity. Serious consultation would do more to prevent the next wave of unrest than any number of riot police.
And to the young protesters themselves, I would say this, with respect and admiration: your cause is strongest when it is peaceful. The broken shop windows give your opponents the excuse they need to ignore you. The quiet determination of a tent camp, or a school occupation, or a peaceful march of thousands, is far harder to dismiss.
Watching from the Indian Ocean, I am grateful that Seychelles has so far been spared such unrest. That is no accident. Since the late 1970s we have steadily implemented progressive programmes of social justice: free health care for all, free education up to university (in 2009 I had the privilege of establishing the University of Seychelles), affordable housing, social security and pensions, sustained by progressive economic reforms. We feel the world’s shocks too, from fuel prices to the cost of living. But these choices have given our young people a real stake in their country, and so far no reason to take to the streets. That is not a cause for complacency, but for vigilance.
Every generation inherits a world shaped by the one before. What is different now is the speed at which this generation can organise, and the clarity with which it can see that the deal it has been offered is not a fair one.
Europe’s Gen Z is not asking for the impossible. It is asking for decent schools, affordable homes, a liveable planet and a voice. These are not radical demands. They are the basic promises any society makes to its children.
The question is whether those in power will treat this autumn as a security problem to be managed, or as a message to be answered. I hope, for Europe’s sake and for ours, they choose the second.
James Alix Michel is Former President of the Republic of Seychelles.
IPS UN Bureau