There may be up to 200 million one-person households in China by 2030, according to a report
A new bleak-sounding app has taken China by storm.
Named Are You Dead? the concept is simple. You need to check in with it every two days – clicking a large button – to confirm that you are alive. If not, it will get in touch with your appointed emergency contact and inform them that you may be in trouble.
It was launched in May last year to not much fanfare but attention around it has exploded in recent weeks with many young people, who live alone in Chinese cities, downloading it in droves.
This has propelled it to become the most downloaded paid app in the country.
According to research institutions, there may be up to 200 million one-person households in China by 2030, Chinese state media outlet Global Times reports.
And it’s those people that the app – which describes itself as a “safety company companion… whether you’re a solo office worker, a student living away from home, or anyone choosing a solitary lifestyle” – is trying to target.
“People who live alone at any stage of their life need something like this, as do introverts, those with depression, the unemployed and others in vulnerable situations,” said one user on Chinese social media.
“There is a fear that people living alone might die unnoticed, with no one to call for help. I sometimes wonder, if I died alone, who would collect my body?” said another.
Screenshot/Moonshot Technologies
The app requires you to click a large button daily to confirm that you are alive
Wilson Hou, 38, who lives around 100km (62 miles) from his family, says that is exactly why he downloaded the app.
He works in the capital Beijing. He returns home to his wife and child twice a week, but says he has to be away from them at the moment to work on a project and he mostly sleeps on site.
“I worry that if something happened to me, I could die alone in the place I rent and no-one would know,” he said. “That’s why I downloaded the app and I set my mum as my emergency contact.”
He also added that he downloaded the app quickly after its release, fearing it would be banned because of the negative connotations around it.
Some have been quick to bash the app’s less than cheery name – saying that signing up for it might bring ill fortune.
Others have called for it to be changed to something with a more positive spin, like “Are you ok?” or “How are you?”.
And though the success of this app must be, in part, because of its catchy-sounding name, the company behind the app, Moonscape Technologies, has said it is taking on board the criticism of the current title and weighing up a potential name change.
Screenshot/Moonshot Technologies
The app sends alerts like these to an appointed emergency contact
The app, which is listed internationally under the name Demumu, ranks in the top two in the US, Singapore and Hong Kong, and top four in Australia and Spain for paid utility apps – possibly driven by Chinese users living overseas.
The current name is a word play on a successful food delivery app called “Are you Hungry?”. In Chinese, “Si-le-ma” sounds like the name of the food app “E-le-ma”.
First launched as a free app, the app has now made its way into the paid category – albeit at the low price of 8 yuan ($1.15; £0.85).
Little is known about the founders of Are You Dead?, but they say they are three people who were born after 1995 who built the app from Zhengzhou in Henan with a small team.
It has certainly grown in value now. One of these men, who goes by the name Mr Guo, told Chinese media that they intended to raise money by selling 10% of the company for a million yuan. That is a lot more than the 1,000 yuan ($140) they say it cost to build the app.
And they’re also looking to grow their target audience – saying they are exploring the idea of a new product specifically designed for the elderly in a country where over one-fifth of its population is over the age of 60.
In an indication that it was seriously looking at this option, it posted over the weekend, “we would like to call on more people to pay attention to the elderly who are living at home, to give them more care and understanding. They have dreams, strive to live, and deserve to be seen, respected and protected.”
The company has not responded to questions from the BBC.
Household food waste collections are starting to roll out across parts of Lincolnshire in early 2026, bringing a new, simpler way for residents to recycle their food waste.
From January and February, residents in the first areas to receive the service will start to see deliveries of food waste caddies and a guidance leaflet arriving at their homes. The leaflet explains why the service is being introduced, how it works, and what can go into the caddies and when the first collections will start.
The new collections form part of the Government’s national Simpler Recycling changes, which aim to make recycling services more consistent across the country. Lincolnshire County Council is working with district councils to introduce the service in phases, meaning not all areas will start at the same time. Because of this phased approach, residents are encouraged to check their local district or borough council news channels for confirmed start dates in their area.
Cllr Danny Brookes, Chair of Lincolnshire Waste Partnership and Executive Member of Environment at Lincolnshire County Council, said: “Introducing food waste collections will help make recycling simpler and more consistent for households across Lincolnshire. Residents will receive clear guidance and everything they need to take part, and we encourage everyone to check their local council updates so they know when the service will begin in their area.”
How the food waste service works
Once the service begins in your area, residents will be able to put unavoidable food waste into their kitchen caddy using the liners supplied. The filled liners are then placed into the outdoor food waste caddy ready for collection day, instead of food waste going in the general rubbish.
Food waste collected through this service will be taken to a local anaerobic digestion facility, where it will be transformed into nutrient-rich fertiliser for farms and renewable energy to power homes and businesses.
What can go in your food waste caddy?
Your food waste caddy can be used for most types of food waste, including:
Fruit and vegetable peelings
Plate scrapings and leftovers
Meat and fish (including bones)
Dairy products
Bread, rice, pasta and cereals
Tea bags and coffee grounds
Full guidance will be included in your welcome pack and is also available online.
When will my area start?
Caddy and pack deliveries will begin from January and February 2026 in the areas rolling out first, with collections starting shortly afterwards. Other parts of Lincolnshire will follow later as the rollout continues.
Residents should regularly check updates from their local district or borough council, including council websites, newsletters and social media channels, where confirmed go-live dates and collection details will be shared. When your area is ready to roll out, look out for your caddy delivery and take a few minutes to read the information provided, so you are ready to take part when collections begin.
For the latest updates, general information and links to local councils, visit www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/foodwaste.
The world dedicates a Poland-sized area of land to liquid biofuels. Is there a more efficient way to generate energy?
Electric vehicles might be promoted as the key technological solution for low-carbon transport today, but they weren’t always the obvious option. Back in the early 2000s, it was biofuels.1 Rather than extracting and burning oil, we could grow crops like cereals and sugarcane, and turn them into viable fuels.
While we might expect biofuels to be a solution of the past due to the cost-competitiveness and rise of electric cars, the world produces more biofuels than ever. And this rise is expected to continue.
In this article, we give a sense of perspective on how much land is used to produce biofuels, and what the potential of that land could be if we used it for other forms of energy. We’ll focus on what would happen if we used that land for solar panels, and then how many electric vehicles could be powered as a result.
We’ll mostly focus on road transport, as that is where 99% of biofuels are currently used. The world generates small amounts of “biojet fuel” — used in aviation — but this accounts for only 1% of the total.2 While aviation biofuels will increase in the coming years, in the near-to-medium-term, they’ll still be small compared to fuel for cars and trucks. By 2028, the IEA projects that aviation might consume around 2% of global biofuels.
To be clear: we’re not proposing that we should replace all biofuel land with solar panels. There are many ways we could utilise this land, whether for food production, some biofuel production, or rewilding. Maybe some combination of all of the above. But to make informed decisions about how to use our land effectively, we need to get a perspective on the potential of each option. That’s what we aim to do here for solar power and electrified transport.
For this analysis, we draw on a range of sources and, at times, produce our own estimates. We’ve written a full methodological document that explains our assumptions and guides you through each calculation.
Before we get into the calculations, it’s worth a quick overview of where biofuels are produced today, and what their impacts are.
Some might imagine that biofuels have lost their relevance. But historical policies supporting them are still in place. As shown in the chart below, the world produces more biofuels than ever, and this trend is expected to continue. Global production is focused in a relatively small number of markets, with the United States, Brazil, and the European Union dominating. Since there are no signs of policies changing in these regions, we would not expect the rise of biofuels to end.
Most of the world’s biofuels come from sugarcane (mostly grown in Brazil), cereal crops such as corn (mostly grown in the United States and the European Union), and oil crops such as soybean and palm oil (which are grown in the US, Brazil, and Indonesia).
In the map below, you can get a view of where the world’s biofuels are grown.
Collectively, these biofuels produce around 4% of the world’s energy demand for transport. While that does push some oil from the energy mix, the climate benefits of biofuels are not always as clear as people might assume.
Once we consider the climate impact of growing the food and manufacturing the fuel, the carbon savings relative to petrol can be small for some crops.3 But more importantly, when the opportunity costs of the land used to grow those crops are taken into account, they might be worse for the climate.4 That’s because agricultural land use is not “free”. If we chose not to use it for agriculture, then it could be rewilded and reforested, which would sequester carbon from the atmosphere.
From a climate perspective, freeing up that cropland from biofuels would be one alternative. However, another option is to utilise it for another form of energy, which could offer a much greater climate benefit.
This should be easy to estimate. If you know how much land in the United States (or any other country) is used for corn, and what fraction of corn is for biofuels, you can calculate the amount of land used for biofuels.
What makes things complicated is that biofuels often produce co-products that are allocated to other uses, such as animal feed. Not all of the corn or soybeans turn into liquid that can be put in a car; some residues can then be fed to pigs and chickens. How you adjust this land used for biofuels and their co-products can lead to quite different results.
A recent analysis from researchers at Cerulogy estimated that biofuels are grown on 61 million hectares of land.5 But when they split this allocation between land for biofuels and land for animal feed, the land use for biofuels alone was 32 million hectares. The other 29 million hectares would be allocated for land use for animal feed.
There are much higher published figures. The Union for the Promotion of Oil and Protein Plants estimates that as much as 112 million hectares are “used to supply feedstock for biofuels”.6 By this definition, there is no adjustment for dual use of that land or the land use of co-products. That’s one of the reasons why the figures are much higher. Even taking this into account, the numbers are still higher, and the honest answer is that we don’t know why.
For this article, we’re going to assume a net land use of 32 million hectares. This is conservative, and that is deliberate. As we’ll soon see, the amount of solar power we could generate, or the number of electric vehicles we could power on this land, is extremely large. And that’s with us being fairly ungenerous about the amount of land available. Larger land use figures could also be credible; in that case, the potential would be even higher.
How large is 32 million hectares? Imagine an area like the one in the box below: 640 kilometers across, and 500 kilometers high. For context, that’s about the size of Germany, Poland, the Philippines, Finland, or Italy.
Could we use those 32 million hectares of land differently to produce even more energy than we currently get from biofuels?
The answer is yes. If we put solar panels on that land, we could produce roughly 32,000 terawatt-hours of electricity each year.7 That’s 23 times more than the energy that is currently produced in the form of all liquid biofuels.8 You can see this comparison in the chart.
32,000 terawatt-hours is a big number. The world generated 31,000 TWh of electricity in 2024. So, these new solar panels would produce enough to meet the world’s current electricity demand.
Again, our proposal isn’t that we should cover all of this land in solar panels, or that it could easily power the world on its own. We don’t account for the fact that we’d need energy storage and other options to make sure that power is available where and when it’s needed (not just when the sun is shining). We’re just trying to get a sense of perspective for how much electricity could be produced by using that land in more efficient ways.
If we put solar panels on that land, we could produce roughly 32,000 terawatt-hours of electricity each year.
These comparisons might seem surprising at first. But they can be explained by the fact that growing crops is a very inefficient process. Plants convert less than 1% of sunlight into biomass through photosynthesis.9 Even more energy is then lost when we turn those plants into liquid fuels. Crops such as sugarcane tend to perform better than others, like maize or soybeans, but even they are still inefficient.
By comparison, solar panels convert 15% to 20% of sunlight into electricity, with some recent designs achieving as much as 25%.10 That means replacing crops with solar panels will generate a lot more energy.
Now, you might think that we’re comparing very different things here: energy from liquid biofuels meant to decarbonize transport, and solar, which could decarbonize electricity. But with the rise of affordable and high-quality electric vehicles, solar power can be a way to decarbonize transport, too.
Run the numbers, and we find that you could power all of the world’s cars and trucks on this solar energy if transport were electrified.
Of course, these vehicles would need to be electrified in the first place. This is happening — electric car sales are rising, and electric trucks are now starting to get some attention — but it will take time for most vehicles on the road to be electric. For now, we’ll imagine that they are.
We estimate that the total electricity needed to power all cars and trucks is around 7,000 TWh per year, comprising 3,500 TWh for cars and a similar amount for trucks. We’ve added this comparison to the chart.
You could power all of the world’s cars and trucks on this solar energy if transport were electrified.
That’s less than one-quarter of the 32,000 TWh that solar panels could produce on biofuel land. Consider those options. The world could meet 3% or 4% of transport demand with biofuels. Or it could meet all road transport demand on just one-quarter of that land. The other three-quarters could be used for other things, such as food production, biofuels for aviation, or it could be left alone to rewild.
It’s worth noting that in this scenario — unlike using solar for bulk electricity needs — we would need much less additional energy storage solutions, because every car and truck is essentially a big battery in itself.
The reason these comparisons are even more stark than biofuels versus solar is that most of the energy consumed in a petrol car is wasted; either as heat (if you put your hand over the bonnet, you will often notice that it’s extremely warm after driving) or from friction when braking. An electric car is much more efficient without a combustion engine, and thanks to regenerative braking (which uses braking energy to recharge the battery). That means that driving one mile in an electric car uses just one-third of the energy of driving one mile in a combustion engine car.
Put these two efficiencies together, and we find that you could drive 70 times as many miles in a solar-powered electric car as you could in one running on biofuels from the same amount of land.
We send two regular newsletters so you can stay up to date on our work and receive curated highlights from across Our World in Data.
Subscribe
Our point here is not that we should cover all of our biofuel land in solar panels. There are reasons why the comparisons above are simpler than the real world, and why dedicating all of that land to solar power would not be ideal.11
The world could meet 3% or 4% of transport demand with biofuels. Or it could meet all road transport demand on just one-quarter of that land.
What we do want to challenge is how we think and talk about land use. People rightly question the impact of solar or wind farms on landscapes, but rarely consider the land use of existing biofuel crops, which do very little to decarbonize our energy supplies. Whether we’ll run out of land for solar or wind is a common concern, but when we run the numbers, it’s clear that there is more than enough; we’re just using it for other things. Stacking up the comparative benefits of those other things allows us to make better choices, if they’re available.
In this article, we wanted to run the numbers and get some perspective on how we could use that Germany- or Poland-sized area of land in the most efficient way. What’s clear is that we could produce a huge amount of electricity from solar on just a fraction of that land. We could power an entire global electric car and truck fleet on just one-quarter of it.
Land use comes at a cost: for the climate, ecosystems, and other species we share the planet with. That means we should think carefully about how to use it well. That might mean a mix of biofuels for aviation, and solar power for road transport and electricity grids. It might mean going all-in on solar. Or it could mean using some of it for solar power, and leaving the rest alone. Sometimes, the most thoughtful option is not using land at all and letting it return to nature.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Max Roser and Edouard Mathieu for editorial feedback and comments on this article. We also thank Marwa Boukarim for help and support with the visualizations.
Continue reading on Our World in Data
Cite this work
Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:
Hannah Ritchie and Pablo Rosado (2026) - “Putting solar panels on land used for biofuels would produce enough electricity for all cars and trucks to go electric” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: 'https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20260112-091056/biofuel-land-solar-electric-vehicles.html' [Online Resource] (archived on January 12, 2026).
BibTeX citation
@article{owid-biofuel-land-solar-electric-vehicles,
author = {Hannah Ritchie and Pablo Rosado},
title = {Putting solar panels on land used for biofuels would produce enough electricity for all cars and trucks to go electric},
journal = {Our World in Data},
year = {2026},
note = {https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20260112-091056/biofuel-land-solar-electric-vehicles.html}
}
Reuse this work freely
All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.
The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.
“Transformation” is a word we hear constantly in insurance. Insurers are tackling legacy systems, driving for efficiencies, modernising their businesses, and trying to unlock new capabilities across the value chain.
Drawing on global research and real-world experience, Matthew Smith, Global Lead, Strategy and Transformation, Insurance Partner at KPMG in the UK highlights the gap between cost-reduction targets and actual results, and outlines practical steps for success:
Munich. The MINI brand looks back on an extremely
successful 2025. With a total volume of 288,290 vehicles, MINI
achieved a significant sales increase of 17,7% compared to 2024
figures. Particularly impressive is the high demand for battery
electric vehicles (BEVs): with 105,535 fully electric MINIs delivered
in 2025 (+87,9%), the brand achieved a new record in electromobility,
resulting in more than every third MINI sold worldwide being electric.
In many markets, the share is significantly above 50%, such as
Netherlands, Turkey, Sweden and China.
Jean-Philippe Parain, Head of the MINI brand, emphasizes: “MINI
continuously increases the share of fully electric vehicles, thereby
demonstrating its innovative strength and future orientation. Our
strong volume growth across all regions in 2025 clearly reflects the
exceptional appeal of the MINI model family. The updated iconic
design, the sportiness, individuality and expanded electric offerings
of the MINI brand have met customer expectations all around the globe.
A growth driver was the largest MINI model in the product portfolio,
the MINI Countryman: with a 32,4 % share of the total MINI volume, it
underlines the brand’s SUV expertise. The Countryman combines typical
MINI driving pleasure with innovative design and high versatility –
ideal for any outdoor challenge. In 2025, 93,305 units were sold
worldwide (+15.2%); the fully electric Countryman achieved a sales
growth of 81.8% compared to 2024.
Sub-brand John Cooper Works reaches record numbers
The sporty John Cooper Works (JCW) sub-brand also set new standards
in 2025: with 25,630 units sold, MINI JCW increased the sales volume
by 59.5% and achieved a new sales record. The share of JCW vehicles
reached 8.9% of the total MINI volume. In some markets, such as UK,
Italy, Japan and Australia, the performance-enhanced MINI models
reached their highest sales figures to date.
The MINI Cooper family
The traditional MINI Cooper family, consisting of the MINI Cooper
3-Door, the MINI Cooper 5-Door and the MINI Convertible, recorded with
162,789 a sales increase of 10.3% compared to the previous year. The
new generation of the MINI Cooper Convertible, only introduced in
2025, rounded off the model family with unique features. With 22,491
units sold, a sales growth of 18.4% was achieved. The MINI Cooper
5-Door impresses with typical brand-specific driving fun, increased
space, and high functionality and recorded with 47,850 units a
significant growth of 26.5% compared to 2024.
2026 starts with the new MINI Paul Smith Edition
Starting in 2026, the MINI Cooper 3-Door, MINI Cooper 5-Door, and
MINI Cooper Convertible – both electric and combustion engine versions
– will be available in the new MINI Paul Smith Edition. This edition
combines the unmistakable style of the British designer Paul Smith
with the playful, optimistic and independent spirit of the MINI brand.
Following the successful collaborations “MINI STRIP” (2021) and “MINI
Recharged by Paul Smith” (2022), Paul Smith now brings his
world-famous design language “Classic with a twist” into the MINI
family once again.
In case of queries, please contact: Corporate Communications
Hydrogen can play an important role in cutting emissions from industry and the transport and energy sectors. It is especially useful where electrification is difficult, such as for heavy-duty vehicles or in large industrial processes. The European Union supports research, cutting-edge technologies and infrastructure so that renewable hydrogen can become more affordable and widespread.
EU programmes such as Horizon Europe, the Innovation Fund and the Connecting Europe Facility offer funding that help move ideas from the lab to the market and install renewable hydrogen infrastructure across Europe.
The following projects provide a glimpse into how EU funding is benefitting hydrogen facilities in Belgium.
GIGA-SCALES — industrial-scale membranes for electrolysers
The GIGA-SCALES project is setting up a pioneering industrial-scale plant near Antwerp to manufacture hydrogen membranes a key component of alkaline electrolysers used to produce green hydrogen. Thanks to this support, the production of these membranes can move from pilot scale to large-scale manufacturing, helping to reduce the total cost of hydrogen production. With a capacity equivalent to 20 gigawatts of electrolysers per year, the project is strengthening Europe’s clean-tech industry and supporting the wider roll-out of renewable hydrogen.
The project is funded by the Innovation Fund, with the EU contributing €11 million in funding.
LIFE NEW HYTS — renewable green hydrogen for transport
The LIFE NEW HYTS project focuses on producing and using green hydrogen for trucks and heavy machinery. The project installed a 2.5-megawatt electrolyser and will operate hydrogen-powered vehicles to collect real-life performance and emission data. It will also develop a business model for regional hydrogen supply. LIFE NEW HYTS includes replication plans of the pilot in Utrecht for Bruges, helping to bring the lessons learned to Belgium and strengthen local clean transport solutions.
The project is funded by the Life Programme, with the EU contributing €4.6 million in funding.
HYDRA — assessing benefits and risks of a hydrogen economy
The HYDRA research project, coordinated by a Belgian organisation, aims to better understand the environmental effects and climate impacts of a large-scale hydrogen economy, including potential leakage along the value chain. The project combines advanced climate modelling with the development of a new detection tool to discover those leakages. This way, it will provide policymakers with reliable information to guide safe and sustainable hydrogen deployment, supporting Europe’s long-term climate objectives.
The project is funded by Horizon Europe Climate, with the EU contributing €3.8 million in funding.
STARGATE — greener airports and hydrogen in the airport ecosystem
The STARGATE project led by Brussels Airport, works on innovative solutions to reduce emissions in the airport ecosystem. It tests measures related to energy use, digital tools, cleaner fuels and mobility around the airport. Several Belgian partners contribute to this work. While not focused solely on hydrogen, the project supports cleaner ground operations and helps explore how airports can support the wider energy transition.
The project is funded by Horizon Europe Transport, with the EU contributing €3.8 million in funding.
Conclusion
These projects show different but complementary ways on the EU supports the hydrogen transition in Belgium: building infrastructure, scaling up manufacturing, demonstrating regional supply chains, analysing environmental impacts and greening complex transport hubs. EU programmes provide financial support, technical expertise and transnational partnerships that reduce risk, accelerate deployment and help projects benefit citizens and businesses across borders.
Discover more stories in other countries on our website!
Climate-proofing the agriculture, energy and transport sectors would help avoid billions of euros in losses from the accelerating extreme weather events related to climate change. At the same time, it would increase Europe’s competitiveness, according to a briefing published today by the European Environment Agency (EEA).
The three economic sectors are highly vulnerable to climate change, shows the EEA briefing “Making agriculture, energy and transport climate resilient: how much money is required and what will it deliver?”.
As Europe is the fastest-warming continent, the effects of climate change are already here with accelerating extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires costing Europe EUR 40-50 billion per year.
Investment gap of more than EUR 100 billion per year
The investments required range between EUR 53bn and 137bn annually by 2050 and a further EUR 59-173bn annually by 2100 depending on whether the temperature will rise by 1.5°C to 2°C, or by 3°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Current committed funding levels are estimated at just EUR 15-16bn per year for these sectors. The funding comes mostly from the public sector, at EU, national and regional level.
To put things into perspective, the EU experienced annual economic losses of around EUR 40-50 bn per year between 2021 and 2024 due to extreme weather events, totalling EUR 822 bn over the period 1980–2024. The costs are increasing, the years between 2021 and 2024 accounting for the biggest annual losses. As those figures account for direct losses only, the sum of total costs will be higher.
Return on investment for climate-proofing
Investing in climate adaptation delivers benefits beyond just avoiding losses from extreme events: adapting to rising coastal flood risks in the EU would deliver EUR 6 for every euro invested, according to a study by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
Another study, on a global level, by the World Resources Institute, concluded that every US dollar invested in adaptation may bring over USD 10.50 in benefits over a 10-year period and yield average returns of 27% per project.
Double and triple dividend of adaptation investments
When discussing benefits of climate adaptation, two concepts are relevant:
The double dividend concept: reducing climate risks not only protects people, infrastructure and economies from the damages created by climate impacts (adaptation dividend) but also helps cutting greenhouse gas emissions or boosts sustainability (mitigation dividend). For example, in the case of nature-based solutions, restoring wetlands both protects against floods and stores CO2.
The triple dividend concept: not only avoiding losses but also unlocking economic potential and generating development co-benefits, as illustrated in Figure 1 and 2.
Figure 1. The ‘Triple Dividend’ concept
Please select a resource that has a preview image available.
Figure 2. Examples of the ‘triple dividends’ in adaptation measures in the EU
Please select a resource that has a preview image available.
The case is clear: investing now in making agriculture, energy and transport climate resilient would contribute to Europe’s competitiveness and would help with other challenges, such as food security.
This briefing is part of an ongoing series of EEA products that explore the costs and benefits of climate adaptation. Together, these products provide insight into the economics of climate resilience.
Simply sign up to the European banks myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
UBS has criticised the Swiss government for failing to properly consider less stringent bank capital reforms, with the lender arguing that proposals to significantly increase its capital requirements have already cost its investors nearly $40bn.
UBS said plans for it to increase its capital requirements were “excessive, disproportionate, not internationally aligned and not targeted”, in a response to a consultation on the reform package published on Monday.
Switzerland’s largest bank has been at loggerheads with the government for nearly two years over plans to force it to back its foreign subsidiaries with an extra $23bn in common equity tier one capital — the most expensive form of bank capital.
The government has said the move is necessary to mitigate the risk of a repeat of the collapse of Credit Suisse, which UBS acquired in a state-orchestrated rescue in 2023.
UBS said in its consultation response that the proposal would damage its ability to compete with international peers, would lead to higher borrowing and service costs for all clients, and would “jeopardise the continuation of the successful UBS business model”. It added that the extra capital requirements being proposed by the government would increase UBS’s costs by $1.7bn a year.
The bank also said that alternative proposals to the government’s “extreme” position, which would “have an equivalent effect at lower cost”, had “not been given adequate consideration”.
“The [government] has rejected these [alternative proposals] because they do not meet the extreme objective of zero risk tolerance,” UBS said.
However, a cross-party group of Swiss politicians in December laid out a set of compromise proposals, which recommended considerably watering down the government’s original plans.
The lawmakers proposed allowing UBS to use additional tier one debt to cover up to half of the capitalisation of its foreign units, significantly reducing the overall capital hit, in a move that buoyed analysts and investors.
The largest party in Switzerland’s parliament, the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, last week said it supported the lawmakers’ alternative proposals, in a further sign that a compromise deal could be getting closer. The party’s consultation document described the government’s proposals as “not proportionate” and expressed concern that parts of the sweeping banking reforms were being presented in isolation.
Its backing was seen as important because the reforms to foreign subsidiaries are subject to parliamentary approval. Parliamentary debates on draft legislation are expected to start during the second half of this year.
The centrist FDP, the party of finance minister Karin Keller-Sutter, has also supported a compromise. Keller-Sutter is the driving force behind the reform proposals.
In a separate submission on Monday, the Swiss Bankers Association warned the government against “recklessly” tightening capital rules beyond international standards, arguing the proposals were disproportionate, unaligned with global peers and risked undermining Switzerland’s competitiveness without materially improving financial stability.
The saga over UBS’s capital position has also weighed heavily on the bank’s share price.
UBS said on Monday the uncertainty had caused its market value to underperform banks in Europe and the US by 27 per cent — at a cost of about $37bn to its investors — between April 2024 and the end of last year, which amounted to “significant value destruction for UBS shareholders in addition to the costs of integrating Credit Suisse”.
The Swiss government has argued that its reform package, which also includes separate measures to strengthen the quality of UBS’s capital base, will substantially reduce the likelihood of another systemically important bank in Switzerland falling into a severe crisis.
However, UBS said on Monday that additional capital costs would damage its international competitiveness at a time when other global financial centres are pursuing lighter-touch banking regulation.
“The [government’s] proposals would significantly increase the requirements and would contrast sharply with developments in Europe and the US, where deregulation initiatives have already been announced,” UBS said.
The bank has held discussions about moving its headquarters to the US if the capital proposals are not watered down, the FT previously reported.
One of Scotland’s smallest distilleries is working with Heriot-Watt scientists to find out whether aluminium could replace glass bottles for its Scotch whisky.
Stirling Distillery is working with experts from the School of Engineering and Physical Sciences on the project, which investigates how whisky behaves when stored in aluminium rather than traditional glass bottles.
We are not suggesting glass disappears tomorrow but offering customers a lower carbon option for a premium product is something worth exploring.
Kathryn Holm from Stirling Distillery initiated the project. She said: “We want to make our distillery as sustainable as possible ahead of our first mature whisky being released in 2027.
“The whisky industry is looking at lots of ways to minimise its footprint. We’ve already undertaken a range of sustainability measures – packaging is one of the remaining areas where we can innovate and make an impact.
“Glass has long been central to whisky’s image; it’s weighty, and evokes the craftsmanship of the spirit.
“But it is also heavy to transport and relies on high recycling rates to reduce its environmental impact.
“Aluminium is lighter and widely recycled, so I asked the experts to investigate whether it’s a viable alternative.”
At Heriot-Watt, the researchers from the ICBD and Institute of Chemical Sciences combined advanced chemistry with sensory tests to assess whether aluminium interacts chemically with whisky in a way that alters its flavour or, most importantly, raises safety concerns.
Spirit was put under the microscope
Spirit supplied by Stirling Distillery was placed in aluminium bottles and tested over several months.
Dr Dave Ellis and his student, Charlotte York, tested the spirit using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, a technique that uses a powerful magnet combined with radiofrequency waves to identify what a substance is made of by measuring how its atoms respond, and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, which detects levels of metals in liquids.
Dave said: “We know that certain organic acids naturally present in matured whisky can react with aluminium, which can lead to aluminium entering the liquid.
“If we stir samples with aluminium metal, the levels were well above what would be considered acceptable for drinking water.”
The chemistry showed that compounds such as gallic acid, which develop during whisky maturation, were reduced or removed after prolonged contact with aluminium. These reactions were much less pronounced in new make spirit, which has not yet developed the same chemical profile
Professor Annie Hill from Heriot-Watt’s ICBD said this highlighted why caution was essential.
“Any innovation has to respect the craft of whisky making while meeting the highest standards of safety.
“The aluminium cans we buy pulses and soup in all have liners to protect the contents from metal contamination.
“In this case the liner within the can wasn’t sufficient to prevent aluminium from passing into the spirit.
“The next stage of this research would be to find a liner that can withstand high alcohol levels for a prolonged period of time without degrading.”
Tasters couldn’t tell the difference
Professor Hill oversaw the sensory testing of the whisky stored in aluminium, carried out by her student Andrew Marr.
“Panellists couldn’t distinguish between whisky stored in aluminium from whisky stored in glass. So the changes detected in the laboratory didn’t translate into differences in aroma. That’s great news – if we can find an effective liner.”
Kathryn Holm said the work would be shared with the wider industry, which is under growing pressure to meet Scotland’s net zero targets while maintaining strict regulatory standards.
Kathryn said: “We are not suggesting glass disappears tomorrow.
“But offering customers a lower carbon option for a premium product is something worth exploring. As a small distillery, we can help start that conversation.”
The reports can be read in full on Stirling Distillery’s website.
You can find out more about how we are raising £35million for our new Centre for Sustainable Brewing and Distilling.
As we look ahead to 2026, AI moves beyond experimentation and enters a phase of maturity. The upcoming year will see AI become the backbone of enterprise architecture, reshape software lifecycle development, and redefine cloud consumption. At the same time, enterprise systems are undergoing a fundamental shift toward intelligent operations, while tech sovereignty emerges as a strategic priority, driving organizations to build resilient interdependence.
Our Top Tech Trends for 2026 reflect this shift toward structural rebuilding, pointing to a single message: technology leadership in 2026 is no longer about experimentation, but about constructing the durable foundations that future innovation will depend on.
In today’s fast-paced business environment, understanding emerging technologies is essential for future planning. Our Top Tech Trends of 2026 report explores five critical technology trends and their implications for organizations and provides a comprehensive look at innovation and technology priorities through the eyes of business decision-makers.
Getty Images
Screenshot/Moonshot Technologies
Screenshot/Moonshot Technologies
