The Inquiry

Earlier this year the global video sharing platform You Tube dominated TV viewership in the United States, knocking Disney off the top spot and leaving major media names like Netflix, Paramount, Amazon and Fox in its wake. In a first for the streaming platform, the time people spent watching YouTube on television accounted for 10.4 percent of total TV in the month of July. In terms of its world reach, the platform is now available in more than one hundred countries and pulls in nearly three billion users every month, the majority of which are between 25 and 34 years old, that’s younger than the core audience for traditional television. Launched in 2005, YouTube has since expanded and diversified, but it’s niche area for dominating the market is still in user generated content and the advertising income it draws in provides the platform with its main source of revenue, leaving the traditional TV market in its wake. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Is YouTube’s disruption of TV now complete?’ Contributors: Mark Bergen, Reporter with Bloomberg Technology, Author of ‘Like, Comment, Subscribe: Inside YouTube’s Chaotic Rise to World Domination’, London, UK. Chris Stokel-Walker, Journalist, Author of ‘YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars’, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Rahul Telang, Professor of Information Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Co-Author of ‘Streaming, Sharing, Stealing: Big Data and the Future of Entertainment’, Pennsylvania, USA Dr. Marlen Komorowski, Professor for European Media Markets, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Senior Research Fellow, Cardiff University, Wales, UK Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Kirsteen Knight Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Cameron Ward Production Co-ordinator: Tim Fernley Image: Silhouettes of laptop and mobile device users are seen next to a screen projection of the YouTube logo Credit: Reuters/Dado Ruvić

The International Space Station will be decommissioned in 2030 and crash down into the Pacific Ocean, ending more than three decades of international cooperation. Launched in the wake of the Cold War, the ISS is seen as a triumph of global diplomacy between the US, Russia and other nations. Its demise will mark the end of an era. Nasa has awarded contracts to commercial companies to develop potential successors to the ISS, and maintain a U.S. presence in low earth orbit. Meanwhile Russia and India have said they plan to launch their own individual stations, and China has already got its own space station, Tiangong. As the era of the International Space Station nears its end, this week on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘What happens after the International Space Station?’ Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Matt Toulson Researcher: Kirsteen Knight Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Operator: Ben Houghton Contributors: Jennifer Levasseur, Museum Curator at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum, Washington D.C., US Mark McCaughrean, former Senior Advisor for Science & Exploration at the European Space Agency and astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany Mai'a Cross, Professor of political science at Northeastern University, and director for the Center for International Affairs and World Cultures, Massachusetts, US Wendy Whitman Cobb, Professor of strategy and security studies at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Alabama, US CREDIT: State of the Union address, 1984; Courtesy Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

This year wildfires in Canada have caused devastation to the country’s treasured town of Jasper. The wildfires have ravaged the landscape, destroyed communities and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. The causes are many, and fires are a natural occurrence. But humans, and the climate, are making them worse. As the number and intensity of fires increase, the methods used to both prevent and fight them may need to change. How can Canada fight its wildfires? Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty Editor: Tara McDermott Technical producer: Cameron Ward Contributors: Mike Flannagan, Professor of wildland fire at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia Liz Goldman, World Resources Institute John Keeley, senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of California in Los Angeles Cordy Tymstra, former wildfire science coordinator for the Alberta Wildfire Management Branch (Image: Getty/ Anadolu)

Ukraine’s President Zelensky recently presented his ‘Victory Plan’ to end the war in Ukraine to both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the two candidates competing to be the next President of the United States of America. President Zelensky’s view is that if his plan is supported by Ukraine’s allies, then the war could be ended by next year. But both US Presidential candidates, whilst in agreement that the war has to stop, have expressed a very different approach to how they would work towards that. And there are concerns from Ukraine that there will be a significant decrease in getting support in the future, regardless of who will be sitting in the White House. The United States is the top donor to Ukraine in terms of military, financial and humanitarian aid, but if their support did wane, it would mean Ukraine would have to become much more reliant on European backing. Whilst Europe has pledged much in terms of military support, it has yet to deliver everything it has promised. And there is the issue of Europe’s political will and financial backing to fulfil its pledge. In light of this President Zelensky is hoping Europe too will be convinced by his ‘Victory Plan’ and perhaps act as an insurance plan to keep the US focus on this war. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘How might the next US President affect the war in Ukraine?’ Contributors: Mariia Zolkina, Head of Regional Security and Conflict Studies, Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, Kyiv, Ukraine Mary Anne Marsh, Democratic Strategist and Political Analyst, Boston, USA Matthew Kroenig, Vice President and Senior Director, Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Washington DC, USA Matthew Savill, Director of Military Sciences, Royal United Services Institute, London, UK Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Ben Houghton Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson (Image: BBC file photo)

A court room in the US State of Nevada provided the setting for the recent hearing between media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his children, over who will inherit his empire on the 93 year old’s death. The succession battle, worthy of the TV drama Succession, which was partly inspired by the Murdoch dynasty, was played out behind closed doors and it’s unlikely that the decision, when it comes, will be made available to the public. Murdoch’s News Corp owns hundreds of newspapers and media outlets around the world. It includes the right-leaning Fox News in the US, which gave Donald Trump a major platform in the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election, as well as widely read newspapers like the Sun in the UK. Speculation over who is most likely to take control of the multi-billion dollar business currently centres around the eldest son Lachlan Murdoch, the sibling most closely aligned to his father in terms of their vision for the future. But at this point the outcome all depends on whether legally such a takeover can happen. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘What’s the succession plan for Murdoch’s empire?’ Contributors: Walter Marsh, Journalist and Author of Young Rupert: The Making of the Murdoch Empire, South Australia David Folkenflik, Media Correspondent NPR News, Author of Murdoch’s World: The Last of the Old Media Empires, USA Reid Weisbord, Distinguished Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School, Visiting Professor, Columbia University, USA Alice Enders, Chief Economist, Enders Analysis, UK Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producers: Louise Clarke and Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson (Image: Reuters/Mike Segar)

With Lebanon, Gaza, and Israel all under fire and a death count running into tens of thousands, the Middle East has never been in a more dangerous position. The United States has been a big diplomatic influence on attempts at peace negotiations in the Middle East. The last major attempt at peace negotiations was in the spring of 2024 when the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken visited the region to try and broker a ceasefire. But despite the efforts of not just the US, but Egypt, Qatar and Europe, there has been no agreement to cease hostilities. What would bring all the different parties to the negotiating table? And is there any country or organisation credible enough that will be listened to by all parties? This episode of The Inquiry asks: Can anyone broker peace in the Middle East? Contributors: Hugh Lovatt, Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations Bilal Y Saab, Head of the US-Middle East Practice and an Advisor in the Scientific and Academic Council of TRENDS Research and Advisory Professor Christopher Phillips, Professor of International Relations at Queen Mary University of London Dr Burcu Ozcelik, Senior Research Fellow in Middle East security at The Royal United Services Institute Presenter: Victoria Uwonkunda Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical producer: James Bradshaw Production support: Jacqui Johnson (Image: Getty/FADEL ITANI)

In September Greek Tourism Minister Olga Kefalogianni announced the introduction of special fees for passengers disembarking from cruise ships at Mykonos, Santorini and some other ports. The fees are part of a broader strategy to manage the resurgence of mass tourism post-covid, reducing some of the negative impacts such as pressure on water supplies, waste management and overcrowding, while spreading the economic benefits more fairly across society. Greece is not alone in considering how to alleviate the tensions arising when exceptional numbers of tourists arrive during peak holiday times. Venice has limited the size of tour groups, charging visitors a daily entry fee and the mayor of Barcelona has pledged to eliminate short-term tourist lets in the city within five years, to ease housing pressures. With revenues from international tourism reaching USD 1.8 trillion last year according to the United Nations World Tourism Organisation, many governments and experts are thinking carefully about how to strike a balance between the economic boost, the tourist experience and the welfare of local communities. Can tourists be enticed away from those Instagram hot spots and what potential solutions could Greece employ to deal with overtourism? Contributors Katerina Kikilia, Head of Tourism Management, University of West Attica, Athens Sandra Carvão, Director of Market Intelligence, Policies, and Competitiveness, UN World Travel Organisation Kumi Kato, Professor in Tourism Studies, Wakayama University, Japan Cevat Tosun, Eisenhower chair and professor of Tourism Studies and management at George Washington University School of Business Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Production: Diane Richardson and Matt Toulson Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Toby James (Image: Oia, Thira, Greece / Getty Images: Fernando Vazquez Miras)

Just over three years ago the Taliban seized Kabul and stormed to power in Afghanistan. They soon declared a new government which is still not recognised by any other country. The Taliban claim they have made improvements to the country. War is over and, they say, there is more peace and security than before they came to power. But millions of people are struggling to survive in the country, there is a restrictive rule of law that is imposed by a very hierarchical government structure and half the population need aid. This week on The Inquiry we’re asking ‘How are the Taliban governing Afghanistan?’ Presenter: Emily Wither Producers: Louise Clarke and Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producers: Nicky Edwards and Cameron Ward Contributors: Dr Weeda Mehran, co-director for Advanced Internationalist studies at Exeter University Graeme Smith, senior analyst for the International Crisis Group Dr Orzala Nemet, research associate at ODI Overseas Development Institute Javid Ahmad, non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC (Photo by WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP via Getty Images)

At the beginning of September, the far-right party Alternative for Germany or AfD, won an election in the eastern state of Thuringia. The result marked the far right’s first win, in a state parliament election, since World War Two. In the more populous neighbouring state of Saxony the party came in a close second. Whilst in both states the party has been officially classed as ‘right-wing extremist’, the results nonetheless, signify a sharp rebuke from the voting public towards Germany’s established political forces, including the ruling coalition. The Afd was founded in 2013 as an anti-euro party to challenge the government. It entered the German parliament for the first time in 2017 and now it’s focus has shifted to immigration and Islam. As the country faces federal elections next year, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz has urged mainstream parties to block the AfD from governing in Thuringia by maintaining a so-called firewall against it. But in terms of the voting public, the polls currently suggest the party could also take the most votes in Brandenburg state’s election coming up. So, on this week’s Inquiry we’re asking, Can Germany’s far right win the country? Contributors: Thomas König, Professor Dr. of Political Science, European Politics, University of Mannheim, Germany Dr. Michelle Lynn Kahn, Associate Professor, Modern European History, University of Richmond, VA, USA Christina Zuber, Professor Dr. of German Politics, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Germany Jörn Fleck, Senior Director of the Europe Centre, The Atlantic Council, Washington DC, USA Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson Image Credit: CLEMENS BILAN/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

In August this year, a US court in Washington DC ruled that Google acted illegally to crush its competition and maintain a monopoly on online search and related advertising. This is just one of a number of lawsuits that have been filed against the big tech companies, as US antitrust authorities attempt to strengthen competition in the industry. Now Google is facing another legal case in Virginia, USA, over its advertising technology. Whilst in Europe it has been fined billions in monopoly cases. Google themselves dispute they are a ‘monopolist’ and presented evidence in the US court case in August to show that they face ‘fierce competition from a broad range of competitors’. The court did find Google’s search to be ‘superior’ to its competitors. And Google’s executives say consumers stick with them because they find Google ‘helpful’. Google is everywhere in our online lives and it handles billions of search queries every day, so on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Can we trust Google?’ Contributors: David Vise, Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist and Author of ‘The Google Story’, New York, USA Professor Douglas Melamed, Visiting Fellow, Stanford Law School, Washington, DC. USA Jonathan Stray, Senior Scientist, UC Berkeley Center for Human-Compatible AI, California, USA Cristina Caffarra, Independent Expert Economist, Honorary Professor, UCL, London, UK Presenter: David Baker Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson Image Credit: Reuters/Steve Marcus

Hezbollah has both political and military wings both of which are designated by several countries as terror organisations. It emerged several decades ago in Lebanon. Since Israel launched its war in Gaza in the wake of the Hamas attacks of October 7th, it has intensified its military activities along the border between Israel and Lebanon. The persistent question has been what is it trying to achieve? Are the attacks intended as a show of support for the Palestinians in Gaza or an attempt to take advantage of Israel’s diverted military focus? And could this dangerous front lead to an all-out war in the Middle East? This week on the Inquiry we are asking: What does Hezbollah want? Contributors: Aurélie Daher, Associate Professor in political science at the University Paris-Dauphine Lina Khatib, Associate Fellow with the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House Dr Bashir Saade, Lecturer of Politics and Religion at the University of Stirling in Scotland Mehran Kamrava, Professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Gareth Jones Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson Image: Hezbollah Fighters and Mourners Attend Funeral of Top Commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut / NurPhoto / Contributor via Getty Images

In 2018 an historic document known as the ‘Provisional Agreement’ was signed between the Catholic Church and the People’s Republic of China. So far this agreement has been renewed every two years and the expectation is that it will be renewed again this year. The only detail that has been made public is that the Agreement allows the Pope final approval on Bishops appointed by the Chinese authorities, other than that it is cloaked in secrecy. But there have been occasions since its signing where the Communist Party have reneged on this Agreement, approving its own choice of Bishops. There are an estimated 13 million Catholics in China, split between the official Chinese state recognised church and the underground church. And one of the Catholic Church’s most senior members, Cardinal Joseph Zen, the former Bishop of Hong Kong, has in the past, referred to this Provisional Agreement as betrayal of those in the underground church. For the Pope, the Agreement is a pragmatic attempt to unify the church in China and make peace with the state, but the underground church see this Agreement as a sell-out by their spiritual father. So on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Is Pope Francis ‘betraying’ China’s Catholics?’ Contributors: Martin Palmer, Theologian and Sinologist, UK Fr. Jeroom Heyndrickx, CICM (Scheut) Missionary, Belgium Samuel Chu, President, Campaign for Hong Kong, USA John Allen, Editor of Crux, Italy Presenter: William Crawley Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jacqui Johnson Image Credit: A worshipper waves the flag of China, as Pope Francis leaves the weekly general audience at St Peter’s Square in the Vatican. Photo by Filippo MONTEFORTE/AFP via Getty Images.

Project 2025 is a blueprint for the next conservative president of the US. The think tank behind it, The Heritage Foundation, has published a book, ‘Mandate for Leadership’. It’s an anthology of ideas that suggest sweeping changes to federal government, presidential power and US involvement in global affairs. Mandate for Leadership is a collection of policy ideas, written for any president to use once in office. Previous Republican administrations have implemented many of its action points. Project 2025 is divisive. Many see it as a way to strengthen the US constitution, but others fear it will dismantle it and invest irreversible power in the president. How might Project 2025 shape the US? Presented by Charmaine Cozier Produced by Louise Clarke Researched by Matt Toulson Editor Tara McDermott Technical producer Nicky Edwards Contributors: Don Moynihan, Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University in Washington DC Jeff Anderson, the President of the American Main Street Initiative Beau Breslin, Professor of Political Science at Skidmore College in upstate New York Heather Hurlburt, Associate Fellow at Chatham House (Image credit: AP)

Last year the Canadian province of British Columbia, launched a landmark three-year pilot programme on drug decriminalisation. For a number of years now communities across Canada have been facing their own opioid crisis, as drugs like fentanyl become more easily available. Vancouver in British Columbia, has always been at the forefront of drug policy change, yet it has seen an explosion in overdose deaths due to toxic drugs in recent years. So the city readily adopted the decriminalisation programme as a measure to try and help reduce the death rates. But now just over a year since its implementation, that pilot programme has been scaled back, and it now means that people found with drugs on their person in public places can be arrested again. Can Canada overcome its drug overdose crisis?’ Contributors: Dr. Alexander Caudarella, CEO Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Ottawa, Canada Kennedy Stewart, associate professor, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada Aljona Kurbatova, head of Centre for Health Promotion, National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia Gillian Kolla, assistant professor, Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical producer: Richard Hannaford (Photo: Supervised consumption sites in the DTES. Credit: Gary Coronado/Getty Images)

Hundreds of monumental human shaped statues are motionless, and exposed to the elements, on Rapa Nui - also known as Easter Island. A name that dates back to 1722, when a Dutch explorer first saw it on Easter Sunday. The statues, or Moai, were there centuries before that and are sacred to the Rapa Nui people. They have also become a world famous tourist attraction and can be found in multiple outdoor locations across the small island. They are heavy and huge - sizes range from 1 to 20 metres tall. Some are upright on platforms, others are toppled over and broken. Over the years, global weather has become more extreme and is having a devastating effect. Can the statues of Easter Island survive climate change? Contributors: Sonia Haoa Cardinali, Archaeologist with the Mata Ki Te Rangi Foundation and coordinator of Easter Island's national monuments, Rapa Nui Roberto Rondanelli, Meteorologist and Climate Scientist at the Department of Geophysics, University of Chile Jo Anne Van Tilburg, Archaeologist and the Director of the Easter Island Statue Project Pilar Vicuña, culture programme officer, Unesco (Santiago de Chile), Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producers: Lorna Reader and Jill Collins Production co-ordinators: Liam Morrey and Tim Fernley Editor: Tara McDermott

The South China Sea is a major world shipping route bordered by a number of countries including China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, all of whom have staked claims to various zones in this vast expanse of water. But tensions have grown in recent years between China who claim the majority of the South China Sea for themselves and the Philippines. Lately these tensions have escalated into a series of dangerous encounters as the two countries seek to enforce their right to disputed reefs and outcrops in these contested waters. At the heart of this particular dispute lies a rusting warship, which belongs to the Philippine navy. It has been berthed on a submerged reef, the Second Thomas Shoal, since 1999, an outpost that the Philippine government claim belongs to them. The Sierra Madre is manned by a small Filipino crew who need a continual supply of provisions from the mainland, but the supply ships are encountering increasingly dangerous stand-offs with the Chinese coast guard in the South China Sea. The Chinese claim these encounters are just aimed at blocking an ‘illegal transportation’ of supplies. But there are concerns that this regional dispute could spark a wider conflict between China and the US, who are treaty-bound to come to the defence of the Philippines, should it come under attack. So, on this week’s Inquiry, ‘What can a rusting warship tell us about tensions in the South China Sea?’ Contributors: Dr Hasim Turker, independent researcher, Istanbul, Turkey Professor Steve Tsang, director SOAS China Institute, London Professor Jay Batongbacal, director, Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea, U.P. Law Centre, Philippines Gregory Poling, director South East Asia Programme and the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, USA Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Katie Morgan Technical producer: Richard Hannaford Production co-ordinator: Tim Fernley Editor: Tara McDermott (Photo: The Philippine ship BRP Sierra Madre in the disputed Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea. Credit: Lisa Marie David/Getty Images)

The H5N1 bird flu virus has spread from birds to dairy cattle in the United States where a number of agricultural workers have also been infected by it. This is thought to be the first time humans have caught the virus from another mammal and the first time the virus has been detected in cattle. This unusual development is being tracked by virologists who have followed Bird Flu since it first emerged in Hong Kong in the 1990s. Since then, across the world millions of wild birds and poultry have died from the virus and over 400 human deaths worldwide have been linked to it. So it is a concern that the US outbreak has emerged in dairy cattle herds and that there has been some human infection - although there has been no person-to-person infection. This Inquiry examines how the virus infects birds and mammals and what the potential is for further transmission to humans. Contributors: Dr Erin Sorrell is a senior scholar and associate professor at Johns Hopkins University in the US. Professor Wendy Barclay studies viruses at Imperial College London in the UK Dr Ed Hutchinson is a virologist at the MRC University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research in Scotland Dr Marc-Alain Widdowson leads the high threat pathogens group at the World Health Organisation in Europe. Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Phil Reevell Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Sound: Nicky Edwards Production co-ordinator: Tim Fernley (Photo Cows queuing for their midway milking at United Dreams Dairy, in North Freedom, Wisconsin. Credit: The Washington Post/Getty Images

Since the CNN Presidential Debate in June 2024 headlines in the US calling for Joe Biden to pull out of the race have been relentless. There have been questions about his age, performance, and ability to run for a second term in the White House. Biden’s ratings have slipped, and donors and party members have publicly said that Biden should step aside. Joe Biden maintains he will not go and that he is the best person to beat would-be president Donald Trump. He does still have staunch supporters and he was democratically elected as presumptive nominee by the electorate. But with weeks to go before the Democratic National Committee meets to make Biden the official candidate, how easy would it be to find a replacement? This week on The Inquiry we’re asking, can the Democrats replace Biden? Presented by Tanya Beckett Produced by Louise Clarke Researched by Matt Toulson Production Coordinators: Ellie Dover & Tim Fernley Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Editor: Tara McDermott Contributors: Martha McDevitt Pugh, International Chair of Democrats Abroad Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow in Governance Studies and the director of the Center for Effective Public Management at The Brookings Institution Ed Kilgore, political columnist for New York Magazine Hans Noel, associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University Image Credit: Bloomberg\Getty

The European Union is made up of 27 sovereign member states and has several governing institutions. On 1 July 2024, Viktor Orbán’s government will hold the presidency of the Council of the European Union for six months. This diplomatic role may present its challenges because Hungary takes a divergent view from centrist colleagues in a few areas, two of them being climate policy and support for Ukraine. And in the past Hungary has used its veto to stall votes on policies that support Ukraine. After recent European elections hard-right parties now have a greater presence in the European Parliament and they have different priorities from their more centrist counterparts. The question is how the far-right, together with Hungary’s presidency of the Council of the EU, can alter the direction of European politics. Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Louise Clarke Researchet: Matt Toulson Sound engineer: Richard Hannaford Production co-ordinator: Tim Fernley Editor: Tara McDermott Contributors: Pawel Zerka, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Paris Thu Nguyen, deputy director of the EU policy think tank the Jacques Delors Centre in Berlin Dimitar Bechev, from the School of Global and Area Studies at the University of Oxford and Senior fellow at Carnegie Europe Marta Mucznik, senior EU analyst for International Crisis Group (Photo:Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Mihaly Orban. Credit: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images)

Artificial Intelligence is something that’s all around us in our daily lives. And even if we do use it, whether that’s to search for a recipe online, make a funny photo, or ask it to help with our homework, every task that AI does uses power. That power is electricity. Around the world there are thousands of data centres hosting computers that process all our requests. And as those tasks get more sophisticated, and AI becomes Super Intelligent, they will need even more electricity. But as Super AI develops, could it become so intelligent that it is able to solve the very problems it creates? Contributors: Dr Mark Van Rijmenam, a strategic futurist Kate Crawford, research professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and senior principal researcher at Microsoft Research in New York Sam Young, AI Manager at Energy Systems Catapult Rose Mutiso, research director of the Energy for Growth Hub Presented by David Baker Produced by Louise Clarke Researched by Katie Morgan Edited by Tara McDermott Technically Produced by Craig Boardman