Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

BBC naturalist Chris Packham has openly requested a guest role on the fictional soap EastEnders so he can turn the nation’s most-watched entertainment show into a vehicle for climate crisis messaging.

In comments reported by GB News and drawn from a Radio Times interview, the veteran naturalist described his fantasy appearance: an environmental disaster such as a flood hitting the fictional London borough, followed by him marching through as himself with a placard to lecture the locals.

Packham told Radio Times he wants the role because it “would give me the capacity to communicate to an audience which I don’t talk to in my sphere of work.”

Chris Packham makes request for BBC EastEnders role to spread awareness of climate crisishttps://t.co/EGpYTlGvjp

— GB News (@GBNEWS) July 22, 2026

He complained that while some people understand the “scale of the crisis,” broader media fails at “truth telling” to “bring it home to everyone.”

“The trouble is, I keep popping that bubble and looking outside, and I see that other people are not aware of the gravity of that crisis, or some of them are still in the position where actually they’re denying … and that’s really scary,” he said.

He called for the messaging to be “integrated into broader output, so properly into news obviously, properly into weather where we talk about climate as well as weather – but also into dramas.”

? Chris Packham urges Barclays customers to set themselves on fire pic.twitter.com/0PtNRFqg7l

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 17, 2024

Chris Packham should consider fucking off pic.twitter.com/zt9LlndWvP

— MrFezziwig™ (@MrFezz15) April 18, 2026

Chris Packham, “Three things.. The message is to keep fossil fuels in the ground, we need a just transition towards renewables.. Stonehenge has been adequately cleaned.. For the first time we’ve seen people concerned about a rare species of lichen” @ChrisGPackham

“JSO have… pic.twitter.com/M8MQcO21hr

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) June 21, 2024

I challenged Chris Packham on BBC bias around trans and gender ideology… pic.twitter.com/6qQcFaGfTI

— Andrew Gold (@AndrewGold_ok) April 29, 2026

This is not subtle. It is an explicit pitch to hijack prime-time entertainment and insert alarmist talking points into the daily lives of millions who never tune into nature documentaries.

British soaps have a documented history of being quietly weaponised for official narratives. FOI documents obtained last year revealed that during the Covid period the Department for Culture, Media and Sport held secret meetings with the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 to coordinate “national unity programming.”

Officials explored inserting pro-vaccine storylines into EastEnders and Coronation Street. Characters were scripted to celebrate jabs as winning the lottery while sceptics were mocked as “anti-vaxxers.” One MP later described the broadcasters as reduced to “mere arms of the state.”

The same playbook has been applied to immigration. EastEnders has featured storylines about exploited African migrants and racially motivated murders of immigrants after hiring campaigner Ade Lamuye in 2022.

Lamuye sits on the advisory board of the Power of Pop Fund, which has directed nearly £5 million to organisations that use media to reframe migration debates.

Similar influence operations have shaped sympathetic asylum-seeker characters in the other popular long running British soap Coronation Street. Activists openly boast that entertainment “holds influence and power to make real change.”

Far from being organic storytelling, this is coordinated social engineering, the same approach visible in other mainstream dramas that lecture audiences on pronouns, “deadnaming” and the supposed problems with classic literature. Channel 5’s The Teacher delivered some of the most direct examples yet, training viewers to treat biological reality and cultural heritage as potential sources of harm.

Watch the pattern laid bare across programming:

Even children’s programming is being enlisted. Netflix is developing a live-action reboot of the 1990s cartoon Captain Planet, the original of which pushed environmental panic, progressive multiculturalism, population control and the idea that humanity itself is the enemy requiring global governance.

Ted Turner’s creation was steeped in Club of Rome thinking that treated pollution and climate as a common enemy to justify changed attitudes and supranational control.

The method is consistent: identify a captive, trusting audience, embed the message inside drama so it feels organic, and watch compliance rise. Packham is simply asking for the same treatment for net-zero ideology.

While Packham demands soaps lecture viewers about “climate breakdown,” the actual evidence keeps undercutting the apocalyptic script. A bombshell Royal Society paper concluded that climate change is not causing mass extinctions, directly challenging one of the most repeated scare claims.

The IPCC itself has admitted that its most extreme apocalyptic scenarios are implausible, a quiet but significant climb-down from the catastrophe rhetoric used to justify rapid policy upheaval.

Research examining three million years of data has found no consistent link between CO2 levels and temperature, leaving net-zero activists without a straightforward causal story.

Temperature records underpinning the COP30 alarmist agenda have been shown to rest on heavily adjusted and questionable data, further eroding the foundation of official claims.

Even Bill Gates has publicly walked back the idea that climate change will end the world, prompting a triumphant response from those who have long argued the threat was overstated.

Meanwhile the Great Barrier Reef continues to defy the narrative, recording its fifth-highest coral cover on record even as media outlets insist a tipping point has been reached.

A major US government report has catalogued the systematic abuses of “settled” climate science and the role those abuses have played in driving net-zero policies that impose heavy economic costs for uncertain benefits.

The milder public messaging about weather reports and soap storylines sits alongside far more radical demands. Some German climate groups have openly called for total deindustrialisation of their country within 15 years, treating economic self-destruction as a moral necessity.

Others treat the entire agenda as a quasi-religious cult, complete with orthodoxy, heretics and demands for collective sacrifice that go well beyond practical environmental protection.

When the warming narrative softens under the weight of contradictory data, the same voices simply pivot. Scientists have revived ice-age doom scenarios, and Al Gore has shifted his public emphasis in ways that suggest the next scare is already being prepared.

Earlier claims of imminent climate armageddon have been quietly cancelled or scaled back, yet the institutional machinery that produced them remains intact and ready for the next iteration.

Packham’s EastEnders pitch is the latest attempt to keep the emotional temperature high after the hard data has cooled.

Flood Albert Square on screen, march through with a placard, and hope the audience never notices that the real-world evidence keeps failing to match the script.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

What is there left to sanction and what is its effectiveness? Europe is boasting of no less that its 21st package of sanctions against Russia, approved by the EU on Thursday.

Apparently it has found plenty of entities still to sanction, as the compiled blacklisting is said to be the EU’s largest in four years, targeting primarily financial and energy sectors. The bloc also agreed to freeze the Russian oil price cap at current levels for another year, alongside issuing 218 new designations.

“At a time when Ukraine has built military momentum, our sanctions continue to weaken the economic foundations of Russia’s war effort,” EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said.

And Kaja Kallas, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and chair of the Foreign Affairs Council, announced that “With each round of sanctions, we squeeze Russia’s economy and its capacity to prolong its illegal war. Our 21st package includes the highest number of listings in four years.”

She described: “We’re hitting over a hundred banks and crypto operators, 40+ vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet, and several oil refineries in Russia and Belarus. More than 50 military-industrial entities are included, key actors involved in the production of Russia’s long-range drones. Russia will only negotiate to end its illegal war and stop killing civilians if it is pressured to do so. Sanctions add to this pressure.”

Notably the EU is targeting not just Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, but any vessel that even assists ships under sanction. According to a rundown via an EU media readout:

Concerning energy, today’s package pauses the automatic adjustment of the oil price cap mechanism until 15 July 2027. This is to ensure that Russia’s profits from oil sales remain contained, despite the exceptional market situation caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Today’s agreement foresees an interim review of the suspension to ensure that the mechanism remains necessary and proportionate. The EU is also continuing to target the shadow fleet by extending the scope of the existing rules also to cover vessels supporting the shadow fleet, by providing bunkering and other services, and listing 41 more vessels on top of the 632 already sanctioned. These measures target non-EU tankers that are part of the shadow fleet circumventing the oil price cap mechanism, that support Russia’s energy sector in other ways, or that transport military equipment for Russia or stolen Ukrainian grain. The EU is designating 8 entities and 1 individual active in the shadow fleet ecosystem, including companies operating on behalf of Russia’s oil majors and, for the first time, a crewing agency providing support to the shadow fleet.

Furthermore, the EU is targeting the oil sector, in particular refineries. It is designating 18 entities and 1 individual in the oil sector, including 3 refineries in Russia, a major Belarusian oil refinery, as well as a company created to sell Belarusian petroleum products within Russia. In addition, the package creates the possibility to prohibit transactions with listed refineries in Russia and in third countries which process or refine Russian crude oil and petroleum products. In that framework, the EU is imposing a transaction ban – entering into force in six months – on a Georgian refinery trading and processing Russian oil in Kulevi. Furthermore, the EU added five oil traders to the entities subject to transaction ban for frustrating the prohibition on purchasing Russian crude oil and petroleum products.

With the Iran war and Hormuz crisis seeing rising oil prices, Russia might not find itself so squeezed after all?

“Russia’s state oil and gas revenue, which accounts for around a fifth ​of total budget income, is seen rising ‌by 60% in July from the same month a year ago thanks to the increase in ​global oil prices, Reuters calculations showed ​on Thursday.

A steep rise from profit-based… pic.twitter.com/tFLV902APw

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) July 23, 2026

Also notable is that Russian LNG is to remain partially exempt from EU sanctions – in what some analysts are calling a sign of weakness.

EU countries have reached a deal on a sweeping 21st sanctions package against Moscow.

It was only possible by allowing Greece to keep sending Russian gas to countries outside the bloc.

🔗 https://t.co/tqqhCCbmqW pic.twitter.com/TRpiygcDQL

— POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) July 23, 2026

After previously holding up the EU passage of the new anti-Moscow measures, Greece won an exemption permitting continued shipments of Russian LNG to non-EU buyers indefinitely.

Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org,

Let’s consider the arguments of those who advocate global governance, the people whom Hrvoje Morić identifies as the Multipolaristas. They are often engaged in China-maxxing and are, whether they know it or not, essentially serving as propagandists for the global oligarchy.

Research conducted by analysts working for the South China Morning Post (SCMP)—an English-speaking, Western-aligned Chinese news outlet—suggests that, between 2015 and 2025, a notable shift occurred in the way China and its government were portrayed by the leading Western media organisations.

Chief analyst Jianlu Bi, who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Policy Studies and a research fellow at the Charhar Institute in Beijing, wrote:

[N]early 70 per cent of stories covering China’s economy, technology or environment in 2019 had a negative tone [but] by 2025, the share of negative stories dropped to around 40 per cent, along with an increase in neutral coverage across all categories and positive coverage of the [Chinese] economy.

This notable Western media narrative shift is part of a wider trend that can be described as “China-maxxing.” With outlets like The Economist, the Financial Times, and The New York Times—all previously known for their staunch anti-China propaganda—now quite regularly extolling the virtues of China and, most notably, its economy, “China-maxxing” is an identifiable phenomenon.

The Western mainstream media is gradually shifting to sell the Chinese government to us as the “good guys.”

Recently, Elon Musk has engaged in some China-maxxing of his own. Musk is part of the gaggle of oligarchs eager to roll out AI data centers wherever they can. Musk was keen to point out that the only national government that has, in his view, adopted the right approach is China’s:

The availability of energy is the issue. If you look at electrical output outside of China, it’s more or less flat. Very slight increase, but pretty much flat. [. . .] If you’re putting data centers anywhere except China, where are you going to get your electricity? Especially as you scale, how are you going to turn the chips on? Magical power sources? Magical electricity fairies?

The previous blanket Western media vilification of China was always absurd state propaganda. China has been framed as the comic-book villain to encourage Western populations to accept further suppressions of their rights by their own governments and to claim justification for increased public spending on the Western military-intelligence complex.

Meanwhile, the multinational corporations that benefit from the government contracts, supposedly awarded to protect Western populations from the fabricated Chinese threat, such as Musk’s SpaceX, are led by oligarchs who genuinely pose a threat to everyone.

Though he didn’t use the term himself, in trying to explain China-maxxing, Mr. Jianlu offered a list of potential reasons for it. These included the Western media’s recognition of China’s technological and economic progress, the Chinese government’s apparent commitment to tackling climate change, its drive for efficiency, and so on. Jianlu argued that all of this has combined to force Western media outlets to reevaluate how they cover China and China-related matters.

Nation-states and national governments are set to be replaced by a global Technocracy. At some point, therefore, the conversation about moving away from the extant governance system to which people are accustomed to the new one has to commence.

Returning to Jianlu’s analysis, he is a leading Western policy think tank representative, and the media outlets he discussed primarily serve as propagandists for Western policy. Buried in the analysis, there is a brief statement that indicates what the real purpose of China-maxxing is:

Unlike the US, where policy shifts can abruptly occur due to political changes and short-term economic pressures, [. . .] China’s long-term strategic planning and consistent policy implementation have yielded results.

Dark Enlightenment-enthused oligarchs like Peter Thiel want to “escape from politics in all its forms,” and beyond dictatorship, there is no political mechanism of any kind in the Technocracy advocated by oligarchs like Elon Musk.

The oligarchy intends to make itself the feudal lords (founders) of private smart city-states similar to those currently being developed in China. The UN desires the same transformation. China-maxxing suits their shared agenda perfectly.

China-maxxing is yet more Western media propaganda, this time intended to convince Westerners that the model of government they are accustomed to no longer works. The Chinese development of Technocracy is better because it “yields[s] results.” Irrespective of the fact that no Westphalian-model Western government has ever operated as a democracy, China-maxxing has arrived to persuade Westerners that the so-called “representative democracies” that they have been misled to believe are democracies are now surplus to requirements.

Multipolaristas, specifically those working in the independent media, perhaps unwittingly argue that the dictatorial state control of human beings’ access to resources is acceptable because the accompanying surveillance state seemingly “yields[s] results.” Some say it reduces crime or that the gleaming towers of the new city-states are so beautifully clean and convenient. Others that China’s infrastructure investment strategy shows the world a clear alternative to austerity.

China is nation-building while Western nations decline and collapse. Chinese Technocracy “yields[s] results” that failing Western nations cannot match. Unless, logically, they too adopt Technocracy.

To an extent, the Multipolaristas make reasonable points. Who wouldn’t want to live in safe, clean cities? Who wants austerity when the state could invest in much-needed infrastructure instead? Who wouldn’t want the employment opportunities and the economic benefits that result? But all of the Multipolarista’s ostensibly reasonable observations and commentaries are based upon fatal omissions that result in them essentially spreading Western propaganda, intentionally or otherwise.

No state needs to impose a centralised technological population surveillance system in order to improve public safety, clean the environment or the streets, or invest in public infrastructure and its own economy. By effectively promoting global governance and Technocracy, the Multipolaristas’ foolhardy suggestion is that functional oligarchies are benevolent and that we should trust them.

Oligarchs are constructing their digital kill chains, and oligarchs like Musk are also promoters of China’s blossoming Technate. This is not a coincidence.

There are no historical examples of a state ever successfully imposing the full gamut of despotic behavioural control systems on a large population. But with its Greater Bay Area initiative, linking China’s numerous smart city projects together, China is reaching that point. Now Western mainstream and independent media outlets are showcasing China’s development to sell all the alleged benefits of Technocracy to Western populations.

Neither fascism nor communism even comes close to the behavioural dictatorship Technocracy is designed to inflict. Ignoring this aspect of China’s undoubtedly impressive modernisation is an epistemological error so profound it renders the rest of the Multipolaristas’ arguments practically irrelevant.

If the objective was not to enslave us, no state and no oligarch would construct Technates. The sole purpose of Technocracy is systematic human bondage.

From humanity’s perspective, there is nothing good about living in a Technocracy. No matter what incentives we are given, irrespective of the claimed benefits offered to entice us, giving our consent to those who wish to foist Technocracy upon us is an act of generational suicide.

There is, of course, no reason why we should agree to any of it.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

We’ve all heard the argument for most of our lives: “White culture doesn’t exist.” It’s perhaps the most common racial refrain because it’s the most socially acceptable to repeat. If someone said “Black culture doesn’t exist because black people all herald from different tribes…” that person would be browbeaten as a bigot by the woke mob. When it comes to white culture, such claims are applauded.

The question is, why is it okay to diminish or denigrate white culture while worshiping every other culture? Furthermore, if white culture doesn’t exist, why are woke minority groups constantly trying to hijack white history and accomplishments?

I want to explore this issue a little more deeply, mostly because of the endless targeting of western civilization through the leftist deconstruction of our most popular figures and mythologies. This time, the Hollywood elites have chosen Homer’s The Odyssey, an ancient Greek classic deeply rooted in western history (white history), as their victim.

Hollywood has pulled out ALL the stops for this movie and I suspect it’s because they are desperate. They are desperate for a woke win. They’ve had hundreds of failures both in film and television in the past few years and it’s starting to look like “Get Woke, Go Broke” is becoming the dominant force in popular discourse. The leftists can’t stand it.

In response, Hollywood has stacked the deck – They brought in Christopher Nolan, one of the only directors left in the industry who still has a built-in audience of simps who will go see his movies regardless of their quality. The distributors have focused on IMAX ticket sales for a wealthier clientele, artificially inflating the overall box office take.

The media has been running non-stop interference, promoting the movie heavily months in advance. Evidence also suggests that Rotten Tomatoes is once again rigging the audience score for this film by rejecting most negative reviews (they have done this with multiple woke tent pole movies over the years).

Hilariously, journalists are already declaring The Odyssey “proof” that “Get Woke, Go Broke” is a fallacy. As I write this, the movie hasn’t made a dime in profit yet. What I find most interesting, however, is that these activist journalists are actually using the phrase “Get Woke, Go Broke” in their vernacular. It’s an indirect admission of their agenda.

They are specifically citing our movement as their enemy and declaring us “defeated” because The Odyssey is projected to make money. By default, they are admitting that we are a threat to them, and that The Odyssey is a woke project designed to “silence us.” But why does this matter?

It’s important to understand that leftists think like children. They believe that having a “majority” is the same as being right; having a majority to them is the same as having power. If the Odyssey is a box office success, they think this proves that they are the dominant political movement.

They don’t care if their supposed majority is actually astroturf; if they can fool the public into thinking the political left has a social mandate, this will win them control over the culture. In other words, they’re trying to manufacture a consensus.

The Odyssey film is a clear salvo aimed directly at conservatives and western history. It is a multicultural travesty, a joke of a movie filled with historical inaccuracies and based on a deconstructionist translation written by a feminist academic from Oxford (Emily Wilson). The movie explicitly undermines the heroism of the story and makes Odysseus a broken man, suffering from “trauma” and PTSD over his regrets of the war and his “colonist” behavior.

But the spurious additions to the mythology are less interesting to me than the reasons they were included.

The deconstruction of Odysseus reminds me of what Kathleen Kennedy and friends at Disney did to Luke Skywalker in “The Last Jedi”. They took a brilliant, courageous and moral man and turned him into a shattered, crusty and nihilistic little bitch – completely the opposite of his original character. This was not a mistake, this was quite deliberate.

White people are not allowed to have bold, wise and confident heroes. We’re supposed to regret our history and our accomplishments. We’re not supposed to celebrate such things, because that might inspire us to be bold, wise and confident today.

The race swapped cast of The Odyssey featuring black actors, Hispanics, Asians, and other people (including a transgender Ellen Page playing a male Greek warrior) who would never have populated Homer’s era is the common angle of attack for woke Hollywood, but it’s not the only attack. If a main protagonist is white, as is the case in Nolan’s film, he must be torn down and made weak. He must be portrayed as shamed and desperate for redemption, which, of course, he will only receive by embracing progressive ideals.

The last thing Hollywood wants is to portray a white hero who is unapologetic for his actions and values.

This is the underlying woke messaging that really poisons the well when it comes to The Odyssey. The minority actors are primarily a shield from criticism. If anyone complains about African or Hispanic or Asian actors in a Greek epic, the media can pull the “racism” card and dismiss the issue outright. They assert that we merely hate seeing minorities in movies.

But it’s not minorities in movies that we have a problem with; it’s the injection of woke propaganda. This is the real crime. If Christopher Nolan made a film based on the African “Epic of Liyongo” from the 9^th Century and he replaced the Swahili characters with white actors in a bid to hijack African history, the left wing would lose their collective minds and scream “cultural appropriation.”  The double standard is obvious.

Will Odyssey make a profit? Possibly. The movie had a big first weekend, but adjusted for inflation it didn’t even crack the top fifty on the list of opening weekend box office winners. The film has to make around $700 million in order to break even, not counting the 20% of the gross receipts that go to Christopher Nolan according to his contract.

I am doubtful that the studio will make much money on this flick, but Hollywood will declare it a victory all the same. Firstly, because no woke movie has had similar momentum in years. And secondly, because the political left is dying and they need a very public win in order to justify their habit of doubling down on failure.

Any sane and intelligent person would point out that one “successful” movie does not make up for the cemetery filled with woke box office disasters. This doesn’t matter to the activist mob. They think that one win will erase all their previous losses.

Furthermore, The Odyssey is intended to act as a continuation of the long Marxist march towards a multicultural west and the end of white history as we know it.

Homer’s epic poem was composed around 2800 years ago and is one of the oldest surviving works of literature in human history. It stands as a testament to the incredible accomplishments of the western world; part of the wellspring from which the modern west poured forth.

At the time The Odyssey was created, the Mediterranean was overwhelmingly Caucasian according to genetic records. This includes North Africa, which was majority Caucasian and largely “white” by modern standards. It should be noted that Sub-Saharan Africans did not exist in any notable quantity in North Africa or the Mediterranean until many centuries later because travel across the deserts of central Africa prevented their migration north for thousands of years.

Arabs were also limited and did not occupy the region in great numbers until the invasion of the Muslim hordes long after Homer lived.

Numerous images from the ancient Greeks and Macedonians, including pottery, murals and other surviving art, depict people of fair skin, often with blue eyes, and in some cases blonde hair, etc. In other words, they were white – Varying shades of white, but still white.

Simply pointing out this historical and scientific fact will immediately trigger the woke mob and their academic allies. You will be inundated with a flurry of exceptions and some tiresome mental gymnastics about why the people of these early civilizations were not really “white”. Remember, “white culture doesn’t exist”, only other cultures exist.

Far too many critics and historical conspiracy nuts actually think the demographics of North Africa and the Mediterranean in the time of Homer were the same as the demographics of North Africa and the Mediterranean today. They don’t know anything about the great migration shifts of the Middle Ages or the invasion of the Muslims. No meaningful discussion can be had with these people because their point of reference is built on pure ignorance.

Beyond that, there is another subset of dishonest people (woke leftists) who see it as their duty to undermine white history and rewrite as if it never existed. They often cater to the inferiority complexes of minority groups by asserting that white history is actually THEIR history. White people just “stole” accomplishments from other civilizations and replaced them over time.

This is part of the narrative that motivates the discourse over Christopher Nolan’s dismal film version of The Odyssey. It is a woke treatise, a magic talisman designed to brown-wash and feminize yet another piece of western heritage. It’s part of a greater agenda to make white people forget who we are, or at the very least, make us ashamed of who we are.

The end game? Like I said, it’s about the multicultural takeover of the western world. Everything stems from this scheme. Hollywood’s woke reboots are rooted in it. The mass immigration policies of leftist governments drive the agenda forward. The deconstruction of our history in public schools and colleges is designed to indoctrinate children so they never learn the truth.

Until one day, we look around, and everything that makes us who we are is gone, from meritocracy to republicanism, from Christianity to critical thinking, from innovation to entrepreneurship, from individual liberty to free markets, from property to responsibility, and yes, colonialism (the act of improving third world hellholes where people are incapable of improving their own surroundings so they don’t turn into pillagers trying to invade our countries).

All of it replaced with a socialist purgatory in which everyone is equally pathetic, hopeless and useless.

The whole conspiracy has become quite transparent and grimly boring. Luckily, one garbage movie isn’t going to change the overwhelming trend, which is the slow but steady decline of left-wing insanity. Nothing they are doing is hidden from us. We see it all, and in the long run, they’re going to lose. It’s inevitable.

A new paper under peer review by the Chinese-language Journal of Deep Space Exploration lays out an ambitious plan to crash a spacecraft at Mach 26, or 20,000 mph, into a near-Earth asteroid to test new planetary defenses.

The South China Morning Post reports that a team led by Li Mingtao, chief scientist for planetary defense at the China National Space Administration, is planning a mission even more ambitious than NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART).

That mission would slam a spacecraft into 2015 XF261, an asteroid estimated to be about 30 meters wide, in either 2029 or 2030.

“Dart was the first to demonstrate asteroid deflection by kinetic impact in space, but it did not directly change an asteroid’s orbit around the sun relative to Earth, making it different from a real planetary-defense scenario,” the researchers wrote in the report.

The planned impact would be nearly 50% faster than NASA’s 2022 DART, which hit the asteroid Dimorphos at 6.1 kilometers per second, or about Mach 18.

According to the paper, the mission calls for two spacecraft: one interceptor and one observation spacecraft, which would use a Venus gravity assist before rendezvousing with the target. It would deploy a small probe to monitor the collision and measure changes to the asteroid’s orbit, shape, surface, and internal structure.

“Focusing on China’s first asteroid-defense demonstration and verification mission, planned for implementation before 2030, this paper systematically reviews the frontier scientific questions in kinetic-impact asteroid defense to support mission design, implementation, and preliminary scientific research,” the researchers said.

If successful, the test would become China’s first end-to-end demonstration of an operational planetary-defense system. It will help scientists better understand how – and when – a kinetic impactor spacecraft could be used to deflect an Earth-bound asteroid.

Meanwhile, SpaceX will launch the NEO Surveyor asteroid-detection telescope no earlier than September 2027, which will discover and monitor most of the potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that come within 30 million miles of Earth’s orbit.

Health care represents a major share of consumer spending in America, but the amount spent per resident varies considerably by location.

New data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis highlights the differences in per-capita health care spending across the country in 2024.

The map below, via Visual Capitalist’s Srijaa Chatterjee, ranks every state using the latest Personal Consumption Expenditures by State data from the BEA. Figures are reported in current dollars and allocated according to residents’ state of residence.

Which States Spend the Most on Health Care?

Below is a ranking of states based on per-person health care spending:

Alaska spent nearly twice as much per resident on health care as Utah in 2024.

Several Northeastern states, along with South Dakota and Washington, D.C., also ranked near the top. Meanwhile, much of the Mountain West and South recorded below-average spending.

Why Do Some States Spend More Than Others?

Higher spending does not necessarily mean residents receive more medical care.

Numerous studies have found that differences in prices, especially for hospital and physician services, explain much more of the variation in U.S. health spending than differences in how often people use care. Administrative costs, provider wages, and regional labor markets also play major roles.

State-specific factors matter as well. Alaska’s remote geography and limited provider network make delivering care significantly more expensive, while states with older populations often spend more because seniors tend to use more medical services.

Broader insurance coverage can also increase the share of care captured in personal consumption expenditures.

Health Care Spending Continues to Climb

Nationally, health care expenditures continue to rise.

CMS projects U.S. health spending will approach $9 trillion annually by 2034, driven by increased enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid, along with continued growth in health care prices. Despite already spending more per person than any comparable high-income country, the U.S. is expected to devote an even larger share of its economy to health care over the next decade.

International comparisons show the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than other high-income countries, largely because medical services cost more rather than because Americans use dramatically more care.

As national spending continues to rise, the nearly twofold gap between states highlights how geography remains a major factor in what Americans ultimately spend on health care.

If you enjoyed this visualization, check out Americans Pay More for Healthcare, Yet Have Shorter Life Expectancy on the Voronoi app, where you can discover thousands of data-driven charts from trusted sources covering health, economics, markets, and more.

India expects to build domestically five small modular reactors (SMRs) by 2033, India’s Atomic Energy Minister, Jitendra Singh, said. The five SMRs would be part of India’s push to accelerate nuclear power capacity installations over the next two decades, the minister told lawmakers in a written reply to questions as carried by local media.

The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), India’s premier nuclear research facility under the Department of Atomic Energy, is currently developing a 220-MW Bharat Small Modular Reactor, a 55-MW reactor, and a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor designed to produce hydrogen, Singh said quoted by OilPrice.com.

As per India’s nuclear energy roadmap, the country aims to boost its installed nuclear power capacity from 8.78 gigawatts (GW) now to about 22 GW by the 2031-32 fiscal year, the minister said.

India goal is to boost its installed nuclear power capacity to 100 GW by 2047, up from just 8.8 GW now. This would require as much as 19.28 trillion Indian rupees, or $200 billion at current exchange rates, of cumulative capital, a panel set up by India’s power ministry said in the ‘roadmap to 100 GW’ report last year.

At the end of 2025, India’s government approved the landmark Atomic Energy Bill, which allows private companies to invest in its nuclear energy industry for the first time, as the country looks to boost nuclear power capacity tenfold within two decades.

The so-called SHANTI (Sustainable Harnessing of Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India) Act could drive huge investments from private companies in India’s nuclear energy sector.

Yet, Indian state-owned NTPC Ltd, the biggest utility in the country, is expected to account for 30% of the new nuclear power capacity installations by 2047.

NTPC, currently the only nuclear power generator in India, is now looking to acquire stakes in uranium assets globally to secure fuel for the expected massive expansion of India’s nuclear power capacity.