The unconventional way we can help save water and avoid shortages
The EA warns that England could face a shortfall of nearly five billion litres of water a day due to population increase, climate change, and the growth of UK data centres driven by AI.
Large data centres are estimated to use around 360,000 litres of water a day, contributing to increased energy consumption.
The EA suggests five steps the public can take to help stop a water shortage, including deleting old emails, shortening showers, and using full loads for dishwashers and washing machines.
EA chairman Alan Lovell stresses the need for coordinated action to preserve water resources, highlighting the threat to economic growth, food production, and the environment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
SoftBank invests $2bn in Intel; proposed new UK property tax ‘could cut cost of buying expensive homes'
Update: Date: 2025-08-19T06:46:18.000Z Title: Introduction: SoftBank invests $2bn in Intel; proposed new UK property tax 'could cut cost of buying expensive homes' Content: Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of business, the financial markets and the world economy. Japan's SoftBank has agreed to invest $2bn (£1.48bn) in Intel, the struggling US chip company, while the Trump administration is reportedly considering a 10% stake in the business by converting Chips Act subsidies into equity. That would make Washington Intel's largest shareholder. The Japanese technology investor announced its multi-billion dollar deal, amounting to a 2% stake in Intel, on Tuesday, describing Intel as a 'trusted leader in innovation'. Intel shares fell by 5% while SoftBank shares were down 4%, retreating from all-time highs. Masayoshi Son, SoftBank's chairman and chief executive, said: Semiconductors are the foundation of every industry. For more than 50 years, Intel has been a trusted leader in innovation. This strategic investment reflects our belief that advanced semiconductor manufacturing and supply will further expand in the United States, with Intel playing a critical role. All eyes were on Washington yesterday, where Donald Trump met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and seven European leaders to discuss a peace deal in Ukraine. According to Trump, Vladimir Putin wants to do face-to-face talks with the Ukrainian president, although Moscow has not confirmed the meeting. (Trump called Putin during his meeting with the Europeans, but some experts are sceptical.) Traders are cautious, with most Asian stock markets slightly lower. Japan's Nikkei fell by 0.4% while Hong Kong's Hang Seng dropped by 0.3%. Here's some reaction to our scoop yesterday that the UK Treasury is considering a new tax on the sale of homes worth more than £500,000 as a step towards a radical overhaul of stamp duty and council tax. David Fell from Hamptons told the Times: Who is better off will come down to how closely the government chooses to follow any recommendations. But I think in response to the general principle, the shift would probably cut the cost of buying the most expensive homes, but add to the annual cost of ownership, particularly given the artificially low levels of council tax charged by many places that have the most expensive house prices. The impact of a change to the system would probably depend on the level at which the rates were set, and the length of time it takes for the higher ownership charges to outweigh existing stamp duty and council tax bills. The Agenda 1.30pm BST: Canada inflation for July 1.30pm BST: US Housing starts for July
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
AI will replace most humans, but then what?
LONDON, August 19 (Reuters) - Is technology more job augmenting or job replacing? This has been a long-standing debate. But recent academic work suggests that technology has been a net destroyer of jobs for decades. Artificial intelligence and robotics could rapidly accelerate this trend, with significant implications for inflation, the size of government and U.S.-China relations. Over the long arc of history, technological advances have enabled industries to emerge, as workers, released from "older" jobs by machines, have been able to transition into newer ones. Indeed, 60% of workers today are employed in occupations that did not exist in 1940, or 74 percent if we consider just the professional category, which added the most workers during the past eight decades. However, recent academic research, opens new tab suggests we may have reached an inflection point in the U.S., whereby technology is now destroying more jobs than it is creating. David Autor, an economist at MIT and winner of the 2005 John Clark Bates Medal, argues that since 1980, the jobs replaced by automation have not been fully offset by new jobs created. This reflects the pace of technological change and the fact that advancements are now increasingly focused on 'professional, technical, and managerial occupations,' Autor notes, rather than lower-skilled work. He finds that machines that are more powerful than an average human (e.g., a tractor) are typically labour-augmenting and productivity-enhancing, while machines that are also smarter than the average human tend to be labour-substituting. And AI is on pace to be a lot smarter than most humans. While forms of AI have been around since the 1940s, the immense computing power resulting from advances in semiconductor technologies has now allowed machines to attain multidimensional intelligence. It is therefore reasonable to assume that many workers are going to be replaced by automation in the coming decades, even if the best AI is never as creative or imaginative as the smartest humans. In fact, a 2019 OECE report and a 2018 paper by PriceWaterhouseCoopers argue that some 15-30% of all jobs in developed markets are at risk of being automated. If AI does turn out to be a net job destroyer, what are some of the biggest implications? First, it's likely to be deflationary. High and rising unemployment resulting from ever cheaper and more capable machines should, in theory, lead to structural deflation, as technologies that can rapidly augment the supply of goods and services should reduce demand if they cause massive job losses. Next, the U.S government will probably get even bigger. In a mass unemployment scenario, the government would likely be compelled to step in to facilitate income and wealth transfers from the owners of robots and tech businesses to the unemployed workers. And which countries will come out on top? The economic winners and losers in the years ahead will likely be determined by who can best create and utilize technology. The U.S. and China, both dominant in cerebral technologies, therefore appear well positioned to thrive in this environment. These economic and technology superpowers have adopted muscular industrial policies, while Europe – the other big regional power – has not yet done so. What this also suggests is that, even if the trade war between the U.S. and China is short, the tech war between these two countries could be protracted – and ultimately much more consequential. The tech war, unlike the trade war, is dynamic, meaning it's not about challenging the static comparative advantages of nations, but rather continually evolving and advancing. Investors would be wise to keep this distinction in mind, as the dynamic aspect of the tech war is apt to become much more important than, say, whether Vietnam is allowed to sell cheap running shoes in the U.S. My views here are admittedly speculative. But the arguments for why AI and robotics could ultimately be labour-creating are as well. Furthermore, these arguments are often obscured by sloppy references to labour productivity, which is a simple ratio between output and labour input. When calculating this, there is often little explanation of what part of the output should be attributed to the labour input. For example, should subway train drivers account for the value of the entire subway system? Projections based on such questionable assumptions should be viewed cautiously. Finally, it's also true that populations in many developed markets are aging, so the heavy use of automation could simply offset the shrinkage in the labour force, something we're already seeing in Japan and South Korea. But aging, like natural evolution in general, is gradual, while computational and technological evolution accelerates at an exponential pace. Because of the convexity in technological advances, it's hard not to bet on technology rather than workers. (The views expressed here are those of Stephen Jen, the CEO and co-CIO of Eurizon SLJ asset management). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI,, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn,, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
How chatbots sent the jobs market into chaos
Excited about that graduate job opening? It's yours – if you can beat an army of other candidates, pass the automated CV screening system and ace your interview with the deepfake HR rep. The odds are stacked against you. The rise of generative AI systems such as ChatGPT has led to an explosion in job applications, leaving employers drowning in cover letters and applicants desperately fighting to be heard. In 2019, there were 50 applications for every graduate position, according to the Institute of Student Employers. Last year it was 140, a record level and up 59pc in just 12 months. For some roles, the number is far higher. Vacancies regularly receive thousands of applications within hours of being posted. Jobs site LinkedIn says it is processing 11,000 every minute. AI means that it takes just seconds to spin up a CV and cover letter, personalised to fit the job description perfectly. Some job-hunters claim to be applying for 100 roles a day. One online tool, LazyApply, goes a step further, allowing candidates to automatically apply for jobs after entering a few personal details. One software engineer used the tool to apply for 5,000 jobs in a week. He landed 20 interviews – a dismal hit rate of 0.4pc, but one that came with almost no effort. This surge in applications, many of them filled with generic, recognisably AI-generated text, is causing havoc for recruiters, who say they are finding it harder to find the best candidates. 'Companies are dealing with a tsunami of sameness in applications', says Estelle McCartney, the chief executive of employee screening company Arctic Shores. McCartney says that companies have always faced a large number of applications for entry-level jobs, where experience was not a barrier to entry, 'but with the advent of the AI-enabled candidate, we're now working with companies across a much broader range'. Neil Carberry, the chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, says candidates are increasingly taking a 'spray and pray' approach to applications. The job market has become worse both for jobseekers and recruiters, he says. 'On current trends it's harder both ways.' Normalising 'cheating' Some point the finger at employers. Well before ChatGPT was released in late 2022, companies were using CV-screening tools to whittle down their candidates, a practice critics say has encouraged conformity and box-ticking. For more than two decades, companies have used 'applicant tracking systems' to check for certain keywords, often to filter for experience or to check they have read the job description. Huw Fearnall-Williams, of Lancaster University, who has studied the use of technology in recruitment, says such systems would often punish candidates for incorrect formatting on CVs that were invisible to the naked eye. Turning such software back on recruiters might only be considered fair. 'Even before AI, a lot of students were taught how to use particular power words, how to give a model answer to certain questions,' Fearnall-Williams says. 'AI is obviously quite good at that.' Many managers say they can spot an AI-generated cover letter a mile away. For all the advances in large language models in the last few years, systems such as ChatGPT still write with a recognisable, middle-of-the-road tone that is obvious to the well-trained eye. Potential employers might see this as enough to discount a candidate, considering that anyone who cannot be bothered to write their own application is unlikely to be a star employee. But the practice is increasingly becoming the norm. According to the job site Adzuna, less than half of workers considered it cheating to write a CV or cover letter from scratch using AI. Almost two thirds have used AI to write their own resumé. James Neave, Adzuna's head of data science, says that AI 'holds immense potential to better match candidates' skills with the right roles and speed up the hiring process'. However, in practice the technology is often used to simply produce industrial levels of applications. 'Many of the AI tools in the recruitment market appear focused on application volume rather than doing what hiring truly requires,' he says. Game of cat and mouse The growing use of generative AI has raised concerns that candidates are exaggerating their capabilities. The Institute of Student Employers (ISE) say an increasing number of successful candidates are not meeting expectations on measures such as self-awareness, resilience and verbal communication. AI means that 'at best, the training process is disrupted, at worst, the candidate finds themselves in the wrong job', according to the ISE's Stephen Isherwood. While some employers have banned the use of generative AI, others allow or tacitly encourage it. The Civil Service now allows candidates to use AI to 'enhance' their applications or 'improve the clarity and quality' of written answers. The recruitment giant Michael Page said last year that AI helps take applications 'to the next stage'. Last week, the Government said it planned to develop an AI tool to help unemployed people find jobs. The Department for Science and Technology said it would work with the private sector to develop an AI agent that can fill in forms on people's behalf, including job applications. This means the use of AI in job-hunting is only likely to go one way. And as the applications roll in, employers are turning to new methods to separate the ideal candidate from the wave of low-effort chancers. Manchester-based Arctic Shores provides game-like psychometric tests that are used by employers including Amazon and Siemens, and which the company says AI systems cannot pass. The tests measure qualities such as critical thinking, problem-solving and appetite for risk, which can give a score out of 100 for a particular role. An increasing number are turning to 'one-way' video interviews, in which an animated executive asks a series of pre-recorded questions. These can then be assessed later by a human, although they may also be automatically transcribed, with answers assessed by AI software. Yet candidates are responding in turn, often running systems such as ChatGPT in the background during video interviews. The result is a cat-and-mouse game with recruiters who try to stop it, such as by demanding that prospective hires share their screen or asking curveball questions such as 'What did you have for breakfast' to flummox AI. A growing number are turning to tried-and-trusted methods. Carberry says that the recruitment industry is seeing a 'flight to quality', in which candidates are often brought in by specialist recruiters who know potential hires personally. Meanwhile, an increasing number of companies are bringing back in-person interviews. Google chief executive Sundar Pichai says the tech giant now hosts its final interview at its offices amid a flurry of cheating in coding tests. The AI arms race has turned into a nightmare of rapid-fire applications and low-quality candidates. Employers might be ready to de-escalate.
