Category: Uncategorized

The shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic continues to loom over businesses still rebuilding after the worldwide lockdown. The 2020 pandemic brought about a lockdown, during which the UK government implemented safety measures that affected all sectors of the economy. Businesses focused on hospitality and leisure were especially affected due to reliance on physical attendance at their premises. This raised the question for many businesses of whether the interruption to their business operations warranted loss coverage under their insurance policies. The ambiguous wording of the relevant causes left the fate of the policyholders’ claims for compensation at the mercy of insurers, who were quick to issue rejections.

The London International Exhibition Centre v RSA & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1026 followed the hearing of six expedited cases by the Court, which concerned policies providing cover for diseases occurring “at the premises” of policyholders. The hearing of these cases shed light on the potential for Covid-19 business interruption (“BI”) claims. His Honour Mr. Justice Jacobs handed down the judgement, addressing the availability of BI insurance coverage for the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic on businesses. The policies under consideration included BI losses due to notifiable diseases (those that medical practitioners had to report to public health authorities) within a certain distance or radius of the insured property. The central legal question was whether the losses experienced could be causally linked to the occurrence of Covid-19 “at the premises” of the businesses, in conjunction with the broader outbreak that led to the government-mandated closures. Insurers claimed that the “at the premises” clauses should strictly limit coverage to losses directly caused by the presence of the disease at the insured premises only.

The Court of Appeal rejected the insurers’ arguments for a narrow interpretation of causation. The reasoning applied as follows: assuming that there were occurrences of Covid-19 at each of the policyholders’ premises, those occurrences together with all the other cases of Covid-19 in the country were the cause of the business closures. In ordering a national lockdown, therefore, the government was responding to the fact of disease having occurred at each of these premises. Thousands of policyholders with the relevant wording in their insurance policies are now entitled to claim for losses caused by Covid-19.

How does this ruling impact businesses with “at the premises” disease clauses in their policies?

In 2020, amidst the pandemic, the Financial Conduct Authority took the decision to resolve the lack of clarity surrounding the application of business interruption clauses. The FCA brought a claim on behalf of affected policyholders against numerous insurers. Their decision significantly assisted policyholders as these organisations no longer needed to fight independently for the resolution of the contractual uncertainty issues with insurers. The key finding from the Supreme Court’s decisions was the fact that disease clauses for business interruption due to the disease within the radius of the premises did in fact apply to Covid-19 losses. Businesses were able to claim for disruption even if the disease occurred outside the specific radius but had an impact within the premises. The clauses that covered losses due to public authority restrictions which prevented access to the premises could be triggered by the Covid-19 lockdowns. The Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments that losses had to be tied to specific local outbreaks in the landmark 2021 decision in FCA v Arch.

The Supreme Court’s findings applied to “radius” disease clauses, but many policyholders were covered under ATP clauses instead, which addressed losses from diseases occurring specifically at the premises. ATP clauses were not specifically considered in the FCA Test Case, which triggered the London International Exhibition Center to initiate legal proceedings in the series of six test cases heard in June 2023. The ATP Test Case in 2023 (London International Exhibition Centre v RSA) was the natural extension of the Covid-19 BI test case by the FCA.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the insurers’ approach that the policies in the ATP clauses should be interpreted by focusing on their language and context rather than comparing them to the “radius” clauses from the FCA v Arch case. However, they dismissed the insurers’ appeals and maintained the first-instance decision. The Court aligned with the findings from the previous rulings, despite differences between ATP and radius clauses. Lords Justice Males and Popplewell and Lady Justice Andrews confirmed that businesses with an ATP disease clause in their policies are entitled to claim an indemnity for their loss of gross profit caused by the UK government’s response to the pandemic.

What are the key legal points, such as causation, knowledge, and the closure of premises due to government or medical officer advice?

In terms of causation, the ATP case confirmed that the approach to causation in ATP disease clauses mirrors the principles established in the FCA test case regarding “radius” clauses. It was established that each case of Covid-19 is a concurrent cause of government restrictions. The “but for” causation argument from insurers, which claimed that ATP clauses differ from radius clauses, was rejected, as the court maintained that all relevant occurrences should be considered part of the causation analysis, including ATP ones. Justice Jacobs rejected insurers’ arguments, holding there was no principled reason why different causation analyses should apply to radius and ATP clauses. The judgement on the closure of the premises emphasised that the restrictions imposed as a consequence of the pandemic were evaluated on a general situation basis instead of looking at isolated occurrences at individual premises.

Regarding the context of knowledge, policyholders were not expected by the court to be able to distinguish between the nuances of policy wording concerning the pandemic. The court focused on the ordinary policyholder’s understanding of the contract instead of a detailed legal analysis. The court considered the notion of equitable coverage by preventing different treatments of claims arising from the same event, with the only distinction being between the ATP or “radius” clauses that they subscribed to.

What are the broader implications for insurers and businesses, including the upcoming case Bath Racecourse & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance?

The broader implications of these cases lie in their influence on pending Covid-19 BI claims across the insurance industry. It will affect the necessity of setting precedents on policy interpretation, policy coverage, and the treatment of government aid like furlough payments (which cover employee wages when they are on temporary leave due to a pandemic). Insurers will be under increased pressure to clarify policy language, as the courts appear sympathetic to the challenges faced by businesses during the pandemic, upholding the idea that the average policyholder would be unaware of nuances in the clauses’ language.

The Bath Racecourse & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance case, due to be heard in 2025, will continue the trend of Covid-related claims in court. This case will determine whether insurers can deduct furlough from Covid business insurance payouts. It will likely set an important precedent, deciding whether policyholders are required to pass furlough payments to their insurers or if the benefit should rest with the businesses that received the relief.

©Whitestone Chambers.

In comic books, robots take center stage—saving humanity, waging wars, and even questioning their own existence. But in reality, they’re quietly revolutionising industries. Real game-changing robots are out in the sun, installing solar panels at a pace humans could never match, with precision, speed, and the potential to transform how we navigate our world. Enter automation, a groundbreaker for the renewable energy sector.

At the heart of this innovation is Maximo, a robot developed by AES Corporation. Maximo uses a combination of artificial intelligence (AI), computer vision, and an extendable arm equipped with suction cups to lift and position solar panels with precision. Roughly the size of a pickup truck, Maximo can install solar panels twice as fast as human workers and at half the cost. It operates tirelessly in harsh environments like the California desert, where it is set to be deployed for large-scale solar-plus-battery projects. The robot’s design enhances speed and accuracy and allows for continuous operation, overcoming limitations posed by human labour. This is a critical advancement as solar energy companies seek to meet the increasing demand for renewable power while grappling with workforce shortages.

There are numerous advantages of using robots in solar panel installation. First and foremost, they offer substantial cost savings. By automating a labour-intensive process, companies can reduce the overall expense of building solar farms, which makes renewable energy more affordable for consumers.

Another key benefit is safety. Working in challenging environments is another area where robots have proven their worth. In regions like Australia’s outback, where solar farms such as the Bungala Solar Project are located, the extreme heat and harsh conditions pose significant risks to human workers. With robots handling the most strenuous tasks, companies are improving worker safety by reducing the number of people exposed to dangerous conditions. Furthermore, automation would open the door to scaling up renewable energy projects. Robots can work 24/7, unlike human workers, ensuring projects remain on schedule despite workforce limitations.

This has the potential to drive a significant increase in solar energy production, helping countries meet ambitious climate goals and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This automation could also inspire further innovations, with more specialised robots being developed for tasks such as cleaning, inspecting, and maintaining solar panels.

Looking ahead, this technological shift could reshape the renewable energy landscape, making solar power more accessible and widespread. As automation continues to evolve, it will become a cornerstone of efforts to combat climate change by accelerating the transition to green energy. The EU’s Horizon Europe, which aims to support large-scale solar projects across Europe, also highlights the role automation can play in meeting renewable energy goals. Projects like the Núñez de Balboa Solar Power Plant in Spain, which is the largest solar farm in Europe, show how automation could be instrumental in achieving the EU’s targets for carbon neutrality by 2050. By deploying robots for panel installation and maintenance, the speed and scale of these projects could be greatly enhanced.

As much as the potential benefits of robotic solar panel installation are exciting, significant challenges remain. The initial cost of developing and deploying these robots is high, which may slow down adoption, especially for smaller companies. Additionally, robots still require oversight and maintenance, meaning that human workers will continue to play a role in the process, albeit in a more supervisory capacity. There is also the issue of technical limitations. Not all solar farm sites are uniform, and robots may struggle in environments with uneven terrain or complex layouts. While robots like Maximo excel in large, flat desert sites, further advancements will be needed to make them adaptable to a broader range of conditions.

Legal and regulatory hurdles are significant issues for robotic deployment in solar installation. For example, the Núñez de Balboa Solar Power Plant must navigate stringent EU labour laws and regulations. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for example, comes into play with the use of AI-driven robots like Maximo. Compliance with GDPR requires companies to ensure that personal and sensitive data collected during operations is adequately protected and not misused.

Robotic automation has raised concerns about workforce displacement, especially in regions where jobs in renewable energy are a key part of the local economy. The European Social Charter plays a similar role, as it ensures workers’ rights are protected, including the right to fair working conditions. Renewable energy projects must address how automation may affect employment and must negotiate with labour unions to avoid conflicts.

The use of robots in solar panel installation is part of a larger trend toward automation and sustainability in the construction and energy sectors. As industries strive to reduce their carbon footprints, automation offers a pathway to streamline operations while minimising environmental impact. For the renewable energy industry, automation is not just about cutting costs—it is also about making the energy transition happen faster and more effectively.

Robots like Maximo represent a glimpse into the future of construction and renewable energy. As technology advances, we can expect to see even more sophisticated systems emerge, reshaping the way solar farms are built and operated. This shift will not only help solve current challenges but will also pave the way for a more sustainable, energy-efficient future.

©Whitestone Chambers.

The UK lost an estimated £2.3 billion to fraud in 2023 – a staggering 104% increase from 2022. Fraud can have a devastating impact on individuals, exacerbating disadvantage, vulnerability, and inequality. It also erodes trust in businesses and government programs, damaging the UK’s international and economic reputation.

Authorised Push Payment (APP) Fraud

APP fraud, the most common type of financial scam in the UK, uses social engineering tactics to trick individuals and businesses into sending money under false pretences. One common example is when fraudsters impersonate HMRC, threatening victims with bogus fines ahead of self-assessment deadlines. In 2023 alone, APP fraud cost the UK economy approximately £459 million.

Reimbursements for APP Fraud

In the past, a number of banks operated voluntary reimbursement schemes for APP fraud. More recently, in recognition of its prevalence, the Financial Services and Markets Bill 2023 established mandatory rules requiring banks and payment firms to reimburse victims for APP scams – with the costs shared among involved firms.

The new rules specifically addressed Faster Payments — a platform that has allowed fraudsters more time to move funds before transactions are flagged, making recovery more difficult. As such, Faster Payments has become the platform of choice for APP scammers. Despite presenting positive changes for victims, the implementation of these new rules is inevitably facing teething issues.

Unintended Consequences

Some have voiced concerns that criminals have already taken advantage of the voluntary reimbursement of APP fraud previously offered by banks. This might involve collusion between a criminal payer and payee, arranged solely to claim mandatory compensation from the banks involved.

Under the new rules, payment companies are now obligated to reimburse customers for fraud, with limited grounds for refusal. The primary exception is when victims fail to meet the ‘consumer standard of caution,’ meaning they are careless about paying unintended recipients. That said, large firms might compensate clients even where this is not met so as to avoid adverse publicity. This is something unlikely to be matched by smaller outfits – widening the gap between large and small payment firms in how they deal with fraud.

Lawyers have warned of the opportunities for organised crime: for example, large Ponzi schemes where dozens of individuals make payments. If a small payments firm was faced with 25 payments of up to £85,000 each, it may have to pay out up to £1m in mandatory compensation.

Balancing the Rights of Victims and Payment Firms

To address these concerns, the Payments Association have suggested introducing a £30,000 reimbursement cap and requiring a police report for larger payments before reimbursement decisions. This approach could help balance victim protection with minimising opportunities for fraudsters to game the system. It is claimed that this would encompass 95% of fraud cases.

It remains uncertain whether these measures will effectively deter organised crime, or if smaller caps will encourage a surge in false claims. Mandatory reimbursement, while well-intentioned, opens the door to a new form of profitable fraud. If unchecked, this could not only fail to address APP fraud but also overwhelm payment firms with fraudulent claims, ultimately increasing scrutiny on legitimate victims.

Striking the right balance is essential—ensuring victims of APP fraud are fairly compensated while maintaining a just reimbursement system that doesn’t incentivise criminal exploitation.

If you or your business has been affected by APP fraud, or if you are seeking legal guidance in navigating these new regulations, contact our team for expert counsel.

©Whitestone Chambers.

I have noticed a definite “uptick” in the amount of “box ticking” in branding climate awareness when trying to sell goods or services.

Imagine buying a product you believe helps fight climate change, only to find out the company behind it is exaggerating—maybe even fabricating—its green credentials. This is the growing issue of greenwashing, and Tyson Foods, one of America’s biggest meat producers, is now in the hot seat. Accused of overstating its sustainability efforts with promises like “net-zero by 2050,” Tyson’s case is not just another corporate slip-up—it’s part of a larger problem where feel-good marketing clouds the truth. Whilst the environmental costs are high, the real damage might be to the trust between consumers and the companies they rely on to do the right thing.

Tyson Foods isn’t alone in this controversy. As consumer demand for sustainable products grows, many companies are quick to tout their eco-friendly credentials. But when these claims are empty or exaggerated, it creates more than just confusion for shoppers — it erodes trust and stalls genuine efforts to address climate change.

Earlier this year, JBS, a Brazilian meat conglomerate, was sued by the New York Attorney General for similar greenwashing claims. JBS had pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2040 but, like Tyson Foods, lacked a concrete plan to make this a reality. Such instances highlight a troubling trend where companies leverage sustainability buzzwords to maintain consumer loyalty without making meaningful environmental changes. Greenwashing lawsuits are on the rise globally. Europe and Australia have led the charge in holding corporations accountable, with their advertising integrity boards frequently issuing violations for misleading environmental claims.

Several high-profile cases have exposed the damaging impacts of greenwashing. For instance, Volkswagen’s infamous “Dieselgate” scandal, in which the company falsely marketed its diesel engines as environmentally friendly, cost the company billions of dollars in fines and settlements. Volkswagen rigged its vehicles to appear less polluting during emissions tests, deceiving regulators and consumers for years. The fallout from the scandal highlighted how corporate deception can damage consumer trust, impact the environment, and have severe financial consequences for businesses.

Similarly, ExxonMobil has been under investigation for allegedly misleading the public and its shareholders about the risks of climate change. Internal documents revealed that the company had been aware of the environmental risks associated with fossil fuel use since the 1970’s but had publicly downplayed or dismissed these concerns. Exxon’s greenwashing efforts involved promoting its investments in renewable energy, which, in reality, constituted only a small fraction of its overall business.

These cases are stark reminders that greenwashing is not just a marketing misstep—it has real-world consequences. By diverting attention away from meaningful action, companies engaging in greenwashing contribute to further environmental degradation and delay critical efforts to combat climate change.

Greenwashing is not just about companies making themselves look good. It’s about misguiding well-intentioned consumers. Many people want to spend their money in ways that align with their values, supporting companies they believe are doing the right thing. But when corporations exaggerate their environmental impact, they rob people of the chance to make informed decisions. Consumers may unknowingly support businesses that are contributing to climate change rather than helping to reduce it.

The environmental consequences are just as severe. When companies like Tyson Foods or JBS make empty promises, it delays meaningful action. In the case of Tyson Foods, beef production is responsible for a significant portion of its greenhouse gas emissions, but the company has yet to outline a clear path to reducing these emissions in a meaningful way. Instead of contributing to real progress, greenwashing creates a smokescreen that hides the ongoing environmental damage.

I think we must spare more than a thought for the businesses that are genuinely working toward sustainability often find themselves at a disadvantage, competing with companies that make bold but false claims. This undermines the market for truly sustainable products and creates confusion for consumers trying to make responsible choices. I am advising my hard-working climate conscious clients to take positive action both legally and with PR to protect their efforts.

Thankfully, the rise in greenwashing lawsuits is pushing some companies to be more transparent. Advocacy groups, legal frameworks and concerned consumers are playing an increasingly important role in holding businesses accountable for their environmental promises. For example, the lawsuit against Tyson Foods could result in the company being forced to pull back its climate claims or publish an actionable plan to back up its goals.

Time is pressing, we must get past quaint labels and examine what we find. Greenwashing does more than just harm the reputation of companies like Tyson Foods or JBS—it undermines the global fight against climate change. If corporations don’t back up their pledges with real action, it’s not only their credibility at risk but our planet itself.

© Lawrence Power 2024

What we must realise is that the 2015 Paris Agreement set an ambitious goal – to limit global temperature rise to ‘well below’ 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, with an optimistic target of 1.5 degrees. What I now fully appreciate is that the “pledge” nature of the commitment had no teeth of enforceability. We need laws that bite.

As the consequences of climate change become clearer by the day – look no further than the deadly floods which rocked Central Europe just last week – the urgency of decisive measures have never been clearer. Yet recent headlines are depressing – COP28 appears to have been a damp squib, and current data indicates that regrettably in early 2024 we have already surpassed the 1.5 degree target. Please do pause on this point and realise how shocking this reality is. Despite Paris promises in 2015; the first world has knowingly presided over failure to comply.

Despite this, going forward and of further concern is that private companies – key players in the race to reach net-zero, are drifting away from the very targets which they had adopted with much fanfare. Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, has abandoned it’s longstanding commitment to counterbalance it’s emissions in the face of the rapid expansion of its AI data centers.

In spite of these drawbacks, I still believe there is room for some cautious optimism. The upcoming COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan seeks to reaffirm the international commitment to the 1.5 degree target – emphasising the need for investment as a vehicle for change. Ahead of the summit, many investors are rallying around the need for net zero. This year, could a meaningful and real commitment be on the horizon?

The $29 Trillion Coalition

This month, more than 530 financial institutions – managing $29 trillion in assets – signed a statement urging governments to enact policies to unlock capital for the net-zero transition. This includes calling for national policies which will accelerate the transition to a net-zero, climate-resilient economy – including mandatory climate-related reporting and decarbonisation strategies for high-emitting sectors.

These are all published in the 2024 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis, outlining 5 critical policy areas:

1. Enact economy-wide public policies

This might include providing incentives such as grants and loan guarantees to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies that enable the net zero transition. Likewise, that states should ensure that their targets for nationally determined contributions align with the 1.5 degree Celsius goal.

2. Implement sectoral transition strategies, especially in high-emitting sectors

For example, remove subsidies for fossil fuels and replace them with clean energy subsidies that boost clean energy deployment and bolster low-emission fuels. This statement comes at a time where fourteen of the worlds biggest banks and financial institutions are pledging to increase their support for nuclear energy; a low-carbon form of energy which could be crucial in the energy transition.

3. Address nature, water and biodiversity related challenges contributing to and stemming from the climate crisis

Why is this an issue? To tackle this, it suggests that governments establish and deliver commitments to address water scarcity and pollution, halt degradation of other national ecosystems, including halting and reversing deforestation.

4. Mandate climate-related disclosures across the financial system

The statement includes a radical proposal to institute mandatory climate risk disclosure in financial reporting, subject to external assurance, with reporting for all public and large private companies and financial institutions. In my view, this will require discovery powers for the external reviewer(s) with penal powers for wilful failures/breaches/cover-ups.

5. Mobilise further private investment into climate mitigation, resilience and adaptation activities in emerging markets and developing economies (EDMEs)

For developing countries, the energy transition needs to be balanced against other urgent priorities – health, poverty, and economic growth. Recognising the hurdles faced by EDMEs in achieving these goals, the statement emphasises the need for external assistance; such as scaling up technical assistance provided to EDME governments, or enhancing the use of collaborative platforms such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships to scale climate finance contributions and delivery in EDMEs.

©Lawrence Power 2024

Legal Climate Counsel

As the 2024 Olympics and the Paralympics have ended, the question of sustainability comes to the forefront.

Many wonder whether the efforts made to ensure sustainability have truly been realised and whether these Games will be remembered as “historic for the climate” and the greenest in history. However, as previous Olympic Games have shown, promises of green initiatives often fail to result in significant change.

Paris 2024: Promises of Sustainability

The 2024 Paris Games aimed to succeed where others have struggled, committing to various measures to reduce their environmental impact. Most notably, unlike many previous host cities, Paris avoided constructing new complexes and facilities, instead relying on existing infrastructure.

An impressive 95% of the buildings and areas hosting the Games were already in place, eliminating much of the environmental toll associated with new construction. The Games also placed an emphasis on renewable energy and sustainable transportation, aiming to cover electricity use with green sources.

Other measures included:

• Leasing over 60% of equipment rather than purchasing new.
• Reducing 50% of single-use plastics in food and beverage consumption.
• Ensuring 100% of infrastructure, furniture, and equipment have a second life beyond the Games.
• Using eco-design, with recycled and repurposed materials.

The Paris Games introduced several innovative measures, including heating aquatic pools using waste heat from nearby data centres and launching a “climate coach” platform to help other sporting events reduce their carbon footprints.

Criticism Despite Efforts

While these initiatives are promising, there is vaild criticism. One analysis of 16 Olympic Games from 1992 to 2020 found that even the most modern Olympics have struggled with environmental sustainability. Sochi, Rio, Tokyo and London, for example, were among the least sustainable, despite claims to the contrary.

Even with the changes in Paris, questions remain. Can these efforts offset the emissions generated by 600,000 spectators and 10,500 athletes travelling to the city?

Advertising, labour, memorabilia, hotels, food and broadcasting also contribute to the Games’ carbon footprint, making it difficult to fully declare them sustainable. The triathlon and swimming events, held in the Seine, also sparked concerns, and many criticised Paris’s attempts at eco-friendly measures. Even athletes voiced their concerns, many turning to social media to express frustration with some of the eco-friendly measures. Issues ranged from discomfort with recyclable beds and dissatisfaction with the food, to criticism of event locations. It seems that in some cases, sustainability efforts may have inadvertently affected the athlete experience.

Looking Ahead

While we wait for the Paris Games to release final data on the overall sustainability of the event, many remain hopeful that they will demonstrate that with focus and effort, the Olympics can one day become truly green.

As sustainability continues to evolve in global events, is your organisation prepared to make a difference? Contact my team for advice on environmental regulations and strategies for sustainable event planning.

©Lawrence Power 2024

Recent trends or notable incidents of passenger theft

The aviation industry is notorious for it’s heightened, post-9/11 security procedures designed to prevent similar attacks. It might come as some surprise that despite the ‘security theatre’ of x-rays, metal detectors, security cameras and armed police, airlines are still plagued by incidents of petty crime.

In May of this year, Delhi police arrested a man suspected to be a prolific airline thief; allegedly taking at least 200 flights to purloin jewellery and other valuables from passenger’s carry-on luggage. In 2023, a passenger was arrested on suspicion that they had stolen over AU$34,000 on a single, short flight from Vietnam to Singapore. Commercial flights have even been the target of digital thieves; setting up spoof in-flight Wi-Fi networks to harvest credentials.

There is little data available about the prevalence of passenger theft – understandably, most airlines maintain silence about rates of in-flight theft. Research by PolicyExpert has revealed that 11% of Brits have had their belongings stolen at the airport, before even making it onto a flight.

The impact of these thefts on passengers and airline operations

Despite the risks involved, there is a clear incentive in targeting passengers: out of necessity, many will carry valuables such as foreign cash, travel documents and electronic devices in hand luggage. Such thefts can be particularly problematic, leaving passengers stranded in foreign destinations without money and unable to enter the country at all.

In response to perceived shortcomings, some have advised avoiding certain airlines and airports to avoid theft; thus potentially impacting customer numbers and revenue. In extreme cases, airlines might be blacklisted altogether; amidst accusations that Ethiopian Airlines allowed ‘organised theft and ‘pilferage’ from passenger’s luggage’, the Eritrean Civil Aviation Authority has recently banned the airline from operating flights between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Measures to prevent theft and ensure passenger security

Many passengers have taken matters into their own hands, using electronic tags to track baggage and detect theft. To prevent theft in the first place, various travel blogs have provided guidance to passengers as to how to safeguard their belongings:

• Opt for a sturdy backpack, preferably one that can be securely locked.

• Store large bags in overhead lockers to keep them safe – If the space is available, it can be useful to place them across the aisle so you can easily see if anyone is foraging through them who shouldn’t be.

• Keep high-value items such as passports, cash and phones on your person.

• Mealtimes, sleeping or trips to the toilet offer thieves the perfect time to strike.

Little is known about how airlines are responding to the issue. Whilst this might be concerning, it should be some relief that many prolific thieves in this area have been caught and brought to justice. In many cases, this has been thanks to the vigilance of individual passengers and aircrews.

What should I do if I am the victim of passenger theft?

It is crucial to notify the airline as soon as possible. Likewise, reporting the theft to Airport staff, local police and maintaining all necessary documentation are vital steps in filing an insurance claim, let alone catching the perpetrator.

©Whitestone Chambers 2024

Considering the Russia-Ukraine conflict, electronic warfare has become a major concern for governments, especially as it pertains to airfare. Russia and the Baltic area are where most of the interference seems to occur. As most modern planes rely on navigation systems that use satellite technology to pinpoint their positions, there has been growing concern surrounding the safety of these systems in an age where hacking poses a threat to many technological services. Unfortunately, one susceptible service is the current navigation services used for airplanes, which poses a significant concern as they could be easily hacked by malicious actors.

History of Plane Hacking

Plane hacking has been a concern since navigation technology was implemented into planes, and as hacking becomes a common skill amongst malign actors. However, in recent news on March 14th, Grant Shapps, the UK’s Defence Secretary, had his RAF plane allegedly attacked by signal jamming after the navigation was supposedly tampered with by Russia.

The effects of navigation tampering are a major concern, specifically for planes flying over Russia and the Baltic area, as electronic warfare equipment has been felt from Norway all the way to Southern Poland. Multiple passenger airlines, such as Ryanair and Wizz Air, have reported several disruptions while flying over the Baltic. Ryanair has reported 2,300 flights that have been affected, Wizz Air 1,400, and British Airways 82.

With the amount of interference occurring and the danger it poses to commercial, passenger, and government planes, new technology for unhackable navigation systems would have a significant impact on the industry.

This New Development…

The new technology being introduced is a self-contained system that does not have to rely on external satellites, leaving it less susceptible to hacking. This commercial world-first, led by Infleqtion along with other industry and academic partners, is funded by the government. In addition to over £2 billion from the National Quantum Strategy and National Quantum Technologies Programme, the technology is installed in commercial planes to provide another layer of protection from GPS jamming.

The technology demonstrates two significant breakthroughs in quantum technologies: the compact Tiqker optical atomic clock, which ensures continuous access to precise timing, and the tightly confined ultra-cold-atom-based quantum system. Both technologies together were used on QinetiQ’s RJ100 Airborne Technology Demonstrator, which had a successful test flight in May of this year. This technology will ultimately be combined with further components to create the Quantum Inertial Navigation System (Q-INS), which aims to offer a navigation system that runs with accuracy and resilience without relying on traditional satellites as many current navigation systems do.

These new advancements demonstrate a large leap in navigation technology security, which, in light of the multitude of conflicts currently taking place, presents a welcome option to stop potential interference with planes. The Quantum Inertial Navigation System (Q-INS) stands out as a promising solution to counteract the vulnerabilities of traditional satellite-based navigation systems. By offering a self-contained, highly accurate, and resilient navigation method, it mitigates the risks posed by GPS jamming and hacking attempts.

This breakthrough not only enhances the safety and reliability of military and commercial flights but also paves the way for further innovations in quantum technology applications. As geopolitical tensions continue to influence global security strategies, the integration of Q-INS could become a standard for ensuring the integrity of aerial navigation systems, safeguarding both passengers and critical operations from emerging electronic warfare threats.

©Lawrence Power 2024

Data recently published by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (“C3S”), an observation programme of the European Union, has shown that June 2024 marked both the 12th consecutive month in which global-average surface air temperatures were 1.64°C hotter than during the pre-industrial era (1850-1900) and the 13th consecutive month wherein the respective monthly temperature has been the hottest on record. This data has also shown that June 2024 was the hottest June ever recorded – with a global-average surface air temperature of 16.66°C – 0.14°C hotter than June 2023, the previous recordholder. A similar monthly streak of record temperatures was observed in 2015-2016, however the C3S Director, Carlo Buontempo, remarked that:

“This is more than a statistical oddity and it highlights a large and continuing shift in our climate. Even if this specific streak of extremes ends at some point, we are bound to see new records being broken as the climate continues to warm. This is inevitable, unless we stop adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the oceans.”

The trend is concerning, because these hotter worldwide temperatures have already impacted vulnerable aspects of the environment. For instance, another C3S dataset has shown that Antarctic sea ice coverage was 12% below average in June 2024 – the second-lowest extent for June in the satellite data record. Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) similarly estimated in its special report, with high confidence, that global-average surface air temperatures over 1.5°C hotter than pre-industrial levels would cause coral reefs to decline by 70-90%. It also estimated, with very high confidence, that temperatures over 2°C hotter than those same levels would cause them to decline by over 99%.

Additionally, the C3S has published hydrological variables data showing a divergence in global rainfall. June 2024 was wetter than average in central and southwestern Europe; southwestern and southeastern Asia; North America; southwestern Australia; and southeastern Africa. This has resulted in severe flooding in Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland and Guangdong Province, China, as well as Tropical Storm Alberto and Hurricane Beryl (Category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale). Conversely, June 2024 was drier than average in most of northwestern and eastern Europe; northeastern Asia; and South America – resulting in wildfires in Turkey, the Sakha Republic and the Pantanal wetlands (the largest tropical wetland on the planet).

As reported by the Guardian, global warming for the purposes of the Paris Agreement is calculated with decadal averages. So, Parties thereto are not currently in breach of the aim, under Art 2(1)(a), to:

“[hold] the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and [pursue] efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”

Nevertheless, urgent action is required from policymakers in order to remedy the climate crisis and prevent future environmental harm. As warned by the IPCC, “there is no single ‘1.5°C warmer world’…” and the effects of climate change will likely vary depending on whether global-average surface air temperatures rise above then fall below 1.5°C warmer than pre-industrial levels, before 2100, or whether they are consistently kept below that threshold until the turn of the century. The danger of inaction is that some ecosystems – such as aquaculture and fisheries – may suffer irreversible losses in the meantime.

©Lawrence Power 2024