Eusebio became the first Black player to receive the highest individual award in history 60 years after taking the Ballon d’Or. Beyond the brilliance, colonial forces had a significant impact on his travels beyond football. Many people may have missed out on Eusebio’s legacy because of Samanta Johnson’s exploration of it.
Published On 20 Nov 2025
Governments are obligated to report their militaries’ emissions under the Paris Agreement, but the majority of the time don’t. The Military Emissions Gap project’s most recent analysis revealed that the available data is inconsistent, inconsistent, or completely missing. The “military emissions gap” is a gap between what is widely known about military pollution and what is actually happening. The outcome is shocking: militaries remain largely unaffected in the Belem negotiations, leading to a perilous blind spot for global climate change.
That blind spot’s size is astounding. An estimated 5.5% of all global emissions is made up of soldiers. As defense spending rises while the rest of society decarbonizes, this share is projected to increase even further. Armees would be the fifth-largest emitter on Earth, ahead of Russia by 5 percent, if they were a nation. Only five nations adhere to the UNFCCC’s voluntary reporting requirements for military emissions, which only apply to fuel use. The reality is much wider: there are no mention of fugitive emissions from refrigeration, air conditioning, radar, and other equipment, but there are still munitions production and disposal, waste management, and other issues. Additionally, there are significant gaps in both climate accountability and action because operations in international waters and airspace are not even remotely reported.
When we consider the effects of armed conflicts on the environment, the military’s emissions gap expands even further. As if fighting wars alone did not end ecosystems, leave toxic soils for decades to come, and cause significant CO2 emissions, including from rebuilding efforts that included the destruction of buildings and infrastructure, as if the horror and suffering from fighting wars were not enough. These additional emissions run the risk of going unreported because there is no internationally recognized framework to measure conflict emissions, which would mean that we don’t know how many wars are halting global warming.
Despite this, accountability momentum is finally gaining. Before COP30, protesters and civil society organizations in Belem are urging the UNFCCC to address this long-ignored source of pollution. Nearly 100 organizations have signed the pledges. Politicians are also beginning to change. Although rapid rearmament is currently putting pressure on the European Union, the defense sector has made progress toward more transparent reporting and decarbonization. These pledges, combined with NATO’s new goal to spend 5% of GDP on militaries, could result in up to 200 million tonnes of CO2 and cause up to $ 2998 billion in climate damage annually, putting Europe’s own climate goals in jeopardy.
The need for accountability is reinforced by international law. According to the recent landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, states are required to assess, report, and mitigate harms, including those brought on by armed conflict and military action, under the terms of international agreements. Global warming is understated by these emissions, but doing so also undermines the scale of the crisis and weakens global ability to address its root causes.
The current emissions-reduction plans are in such a disarray that they do not meet the 1.5C limit. What will happen next if the COP30 negotiators reach an agreement on a plan to phase out fossil fuels, and whether it will lead to real progress or just symbolic change? Military emissions cannot continue to be hidden, and no industry can be exempt from climate change.
It is necessary to report all military emissions to the UNFCCC, starting with combat and training, and ending any long-lasting climate damage that communities may experience. That information must serve as the foundation for national climate plans that are urgent, science-aligned, and in line with the 1.5C limit.
The climate cannot be compromised by security. Our collective safety and the survival of our planet are now a top priority.
An expert panel determined that Liverpool’s controversial goal against Manchester City was correct in being overturned by a video assistant review (VAR).
However, the panel that evaluates weekly major refereeing decisions had disagreements about the decision.
The five-person panel decided by a vote of three to two that VAR was correct to not intervene despite the on-field decision to disallow the goal.
Virgil Van Dijk, the captain of Liverpool, believed earlier this month that he had equalized for them in the 38th minute at Etihad Stadium. City then won 3-1.
Andy Robertson had ducked under the ball on its way to goal, according to referee Chris Kavanagh and his assistant Stuart Burt, who later disallowed the goal.
The VAR team, which included Tim Wood and Michael Oliver, supported the decision that Robertson’s obvious action might have had an impact on goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma.
Three former players and one representative from each Premier League and PGMO were chosen by the KMI Panel, who both agreed that the assistant should not have caused the offside, and that the VAR was correct to stay away from the game.
It demonstrates the decision’s highly subjective nature, which referees’ chairman Howard Webb described as “not unreasonable.”
The majority of the panel “felt that the goal should have been given because Robertson wasn’t in the line of vision of the goalkeeper at the time of the header, and his subsequent actions didn’t clearly impact Donnarumma’s attempt to save the ball,” according to the KMI Panel’s decision.
However, one panel member concluded that “the movement in front of the goalkeeper meant that this was not a clear and obvious error, and VAR was correct to not intervene,” while two of the five panel members “felt this was therefore a clear and obvious error.”
Following VAR (3: 2)), this resulted in a split, correct, outcome. The two other panel members supported Donnarumma’s attempt to save after Robertson’s obvious action in front of the goalkeeper was deemed offensive by the two other panel members.
The KMI Panel makes two separate decisions, taking into account the Premier League’s regulations and expectations for game refereeing.
In the Brentford vs. Newcastle game, the KMI Panel made a VAR error by booking Dango Ouattara for simulation after Dan Burn challenged him in the 61st minute.
According to the report, “the panel was unanimous in their opinion that Burn knowingly tripped off Outtara and should have received a penalty kick.”
The panel was however divided on whether the VAR resulted from a clear and obvious error (2: 3) because the video clearly demonstrated an error in not imposing a penalty. The two other members argued that the contact’s call should remain insince it was not a clear and obvious error because the contact was staring.
All other weekend decisions were supported, including a 5-0 vote that Sunderland defender Dan Ballard’s elbow-toting decision to not give Arsenal a penalty.
The US Justice Department is required to release the remaining Epstein files within 30 days by President Donald Trump’s signed law. The Attorney General vowed to follow through with the request, but he made hints that some documents might be kept for legal reasons.
Published On 20 Nov 2025
What, however, do those who will call every ball anticipate?
Ben Stokes will need to bowl, bat, field, and lead the way that he can, according to my prediction, which is based on his remaining fitness for five games.
The Australians will be under a lot of pressure and may need to return their injured fast bowlers sooner if England come out and win well in the first Test.
“The series will end in a draw in either Brisbane or Sydney, like it did two years ago.”
“I don’t believe I’ve ever made a prediction that would be different from the previous series, which is unusual for me to make.”
It has the potential to be a fantastic series. Great and incredible was England-India in the UK during Australia’s final series against India. We want Test cricket to deliver that.
“I’m hoping Australia will just get across the line in every game,” he said. “I’m hoping all the Tests are hard fought, going down to the wire.”
“It could be anything, wouldn’t it be?” I had anticipated a draw of 2-2, but now that I’m here, I believe England can win.
There won’t be any draws, they say. Every Test match will end in the middle, with England merely smuggling it, in my opinion.
I hate to say it, but I believe Australia will prevail.
“One of Brisbane or Sydney will get rained off in Perth, and England might win.” Sydney probably resembles Manchester more, because it is.
I want England to win, but have Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood’s absence from the first Test gotten us a little too excited?
“A lot depends on what takes place in Perth,” he said. England have a good chance of winning the series if they win.
It’s a significant if, “. I believe England will win in Perth and go on to win the series since they haven’t won an Australian Test in 14 years.
England’s first objective is to compete hard and deliver on the hyped series after three one-sided starts since 2010-11.
If at least seven performers perform at or close to their best and other participants contribute, they could draw the outcome. However, I prefer that 30-somethings in Australia have one more party.
“I’m hoping it won’t be over before Christmas this time.”
Although this is “potentially optimistic” from the perspective of English fans and fans of close-fought television shows, I believe the method used to defeat Australia’s elite bowling attack in 2023 offers a hopeful blueprint.
They both suffered from their most expensive series, Hazlewood, and Boland, who were all habitually parsimonious. They have enough potency in their bowling to remain competitive throughout if they can achieve something comparable away from home, which would be a challenging challenge, especially if the pitches follow recent Australian trends.
“I anticipate that England will have their second-best Ashes since 1990, which is, admittedly, an almost subterraneanly low bar. And I may reevaluate after the first 0. 5 seconds of the series. Again”.
Palestinian orphan Elham Abu Hajjaj is learning to cope with her loss after an Israeli strike killed her parents and left her with severe burns. She’s just one of tens of thousands of children from Gaza who’ve suffered bereavement, serious injury, or both.