Sustainability has become a defining benchmark for national progress, economic resilience, and long-term competitiveness.

As countries accelerate their transition toward cleaner and more efficient energy systems, one reality is becoming increasingly clear: scaling sustainability is impossible without advanced energy storage.

Energy storage has shifted from a technical consideration to a strategic requirement. It is the mechanism that allows nations to convert renewable energy from an intermittent resource into a stable, reliable foundation for growth.

In the context of Saudi Arabia’s transformation, storage is emerging as one of the most critical enablers of the Kingdom’s longterm sustainability ambitions.

A new energy logic for a new era

For years, the global energy debate centered on generation — how to produce more power and how to produce it more cleanly.

But as renewable energy expands, the challenge has evolved.

Solar and wind do not always align with the rhythm of human activity or industrial demand. This creates a gap between when energy is produced and when it is needed.

Energy storage bridges that gap. By capturing excess energy during periods of high production and releasing it during peak demand, storage systems enhance grid stability, reduce reliance on fossilfuel backup plants, and support higher renewable penetration.

In practice, this means lower operational costs, improved reliability, and a more resilient national energy framework.

This shift in energy logic is not theoretical.

It is already reshaping how nations plan infrastructure, design industrial zones, and prepare for future demand.

Countries that fail to integrate storage into their energy strategies risk facing bottlenecks that limit their ability to scale renewables effectively.

Saudi Arabia’s strategic window

Saudi Arabia is uniquely positioned to lead this transformation.

Vision 2030 has created a national environment where innovation is not optional — it is essential.

The Kingdom’s renewable energy program is expanding rapidly, supported by gigaprojects that integrate storage technologies from the outset.

These projects are not only symbols of ambition; they are practical demonstrations of how storage can support largescale, sustainable development.

Yet the real opportunity lies in building a comprehensive national ecosystem for energy storage.

This ecosystem includes localized manufacturing, research and development, regulatory support, and strong industrial partnerships.

Together, these elements can position Saudi Arabia as a global hub for next generation storage solutions.

The Kingdom’s industrial capabilities, combined with its strategic geographic position and investment climate, give it a competitive advantage.

By moving early and decisively, Saudi Arabia can shape the regional market and influence global trends in storage technology.

A human-centered impact

While energy storage is often discussed in technical terms, its impact is deeply human.

Reliable, clean energy affects daily life in ways that are both visible and subtle.

It ensures hospitals remain powered, businesses operate without interruption, and homes stay cool during extreme heat.

It reduces emissions, improves air quality, and supports the digital infrastructure that modern economies depend on.

Storage is the unseen backbone that allows sustainability to move from policy to practice.

It is the infrastructure that ensures renewable energy is not just available, but dependable. And in a region where climate conditions can be extreme, this reliability is not a luxury — it is a necessity.

A personal observation from the field

In my work training Saudi technicians and engineers across the energy and industrial sectors, I have witnessed a powerful shift.

Young Saudis are not only eager to learn — they are driven by a clear sense of purpose.

They understand that the technologies they are mastering today will define the Kingdom’s energy landscape for decades to come.

This is why human capability development is inseparable from technological progress. A sustainable energy future requires a sustainable talent pipeline.

Saudi technicians and engineers will be the ones installing, operating, and advancing the storage systems that support the Kingdom’s long-term goals.

Their skills will form the professional base of Saudi Arabia’s energy future.

By investing in their training, we are not simply preparing individuals for jobs — we are building national capacity that will anchor the Kingdom’s competitiveness.

This investment in people is one of the most powerful forms of sustainability.

It ensures that the Kingdom’s energy transition is not dependent on external expertise but is driven by Saudi professionals who understand the local context, the national vision, and the long-term priorities of the country.

Technology advancing at pace

Globally, storage technologies are evolving rapidly. Lithium-ion batteries remain dominant, but new solutions are emerging, including sodium-ion, solid-state, and flow batteries, as well as hydrogen-based and thermal storage systems.

Each technology serves a distinct purpose, and the future will rely on a diversified portfolio rather than a single solution.

For Saudi Arabia, this technological diversity is an advantage.

It allows the Kingdom to invest strategically, localize manufacturing, and build competitive strength across multiple segments of the storage value chain.

It also creates opportunities for research institutions, universities, and training centers to develop specialized programs that prepare the workforce for emerging technologies.

Industrial and economic value creation

Energy storage is not only an environmental necessity — it is an economic opportunity.

Nations that invest early in storage manufacturing and supply chains will shape the next global energy economy. Saudi Arabia’s industrial ecosystem, supported by national funds and regulatory momentum, is well positioned to capture this value.

Localizing storage technologies can create high-value jobs, attract global partnerships, strengthen energy security, and support export-driven industries.

These outcomes align directly with the Kingdom’s longterm diversification strategy and reinforce its position as a leader in advanced industries.

A regional model for scalable sustainability

The Middle East is rapidly emerging as a center of energy innovation.

Saudi Arabia’s integrated approach — combining renewables, storage, hydrogen, and smart grid technologies — offers a model for scalable sustainability across the region.

A fully developed storage ecosystem would not only support national goals but also set a benchmark for neighboring markets.

A forward-looking national priority

As global energy systems evolve, the ability to scale sustainability will depend on how effectively nations integrate advanced storage solutions into their infrastructure and workforce.

For Saudi Arabia, energy storage is more than a technical requirement — it is a strategic capability that strengthens national resilience, accelerates economic diversification, and empowers a new generation of Saudi professionals.

The choices made today will shape the Kingdom’s competitive position for decades, and energy storage stands at the center of that transformation.

• Majid M Refae, chairman of the Saudi Polytechnic Institute for Renewable Energy
 

Artificial intelligence is rapidly integrating into nearly every aspect of modern life, yet few fields are feeling its impact as dramatically as the film industry.

For more than a century, great films have been the product of massive collaborative effort.

From scouting locations and building sets to coordinating actors, lighting, and sound, filmmaking has always been an intensely human endeavor.

On a set, with cameras rolling and a director shouting “action,” every member of the cast and crew moves in careful synchrony.

The late filmmaker Samuel Fuller once described filmmaking as “a battleground — love, hate, action, violence, death — in one word: emotion.”

It is precisely this emotional and often chaotic energy that has long defined cinema. However, with the arrival of AI-powered cinematography, that vibrant atmosphere is changing.

From prompts to production

The industry is currently undergoing a profound technological shift. AI-driven visual design platforms such as DALL-E, Midjourney, and OpenAI’s Sora are transforming the early stages of filmmaking.

Tasks that once required weeks of work — such as concept art, character design, and visual style development — can now be generated within minutes through simple text prompts.

This transformation extends far beyond pre-production. During filming and post-production, AI tools are increasingly capable of generating entire scenes, environments, and complex actions based on creative direction.

Filmmakers can now refine outputs and combine digital elements without ever picking up a traditional camera.

In conventional filmmaking, editing involves cutting and enhancing existing footage.

AI alters this process entirely. Instead of relying solely on recorded material, generative models trained on vast datasets can synthesize scenes, characters, and animations from scratch.

The rise of the virtual performer

The implications of these tools are significant. AI systems can transform a written prompt into complete visuals and movement automatically, accelerating creative experimentation and lowering production costs.

This democratization allows beginners to create high-quality video content without the need for expensive cameras, actors, or advanced editing skills.

Another major development is the emergence of virtual actors and AI-driven computer-generated imagery.

Using deep learning, filmmakers can digitally alter an actor’s appearance — making them appear decades younger or older with remarkable realism.

Many of these effects rely on Generative Adversarial Networks, which analyze thousands of facial expressions to recreate convincing human features.

Deepfake technology has taken this even further, allowing filmmakers to replace faces, resurrect historical figures, or create digital performers that are almost indistinguishable from real people.

Can a machine write a masterpiece?

Artificial intelligence has even entered the writers’ room. Using Natural Language Processing, AI tools can analyze patterns in successful screenplays to estimate audience engagement or generate dialogue that imitates a specific writer’s style.

Yet, despite these advances, AI still struggles with the essentials of the craft: originality, emotional depth, and the subtle nuance that human writers bring to storytelling.

This raises a fundamental question: Is AI-generated work truly authentic?

Cinema has always been a blend of art and technology. Masterpieces such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix Revolutions, and Titanic demonstrate how technology can expand storytelling possibilities.

But could AI produce a film with the emotional weight of The Godfather, Cast Away, or Saving Private Ryan?

For now, the answer is likely no. These films rely on deeply human performances and emotional nuances delivered by actors like Tom Hanks, Marlon Brando, and Al Pacino — qualities that machines cannot yet replicate.

A collaborative future

However, technology evolves quickly. As audiences grow familiar with AI-generated content, the possibility of a machine-assisted cinematic classic no longer seems far-fetched.

The future of filmmaking may not be a battle between humans and machines, but a collaboration— one where artificial intelligence expands the toolkit of storytelling while human creativity continues to give cinema its soul.

• Mai Anati is managing editor at The Jordan Times.
 

The divergence between the Paris AI Action Summit of 2025 and the New Delhi AI Impact Summit of 2026 represents more than a difference in signatory counts or diplomatic phrasing. 

It reflects a widening global schism: Is artificial intelligence a domain for coordinated cooperation under shared rules, or a battleground where great powers refuse any supranational constraints on their technological advantage? 

From Paris to Delhi, a multipolar governance landscape is taking shape — one in which the United States has signaled a clear stance: yes to voluntary coordination, but a firm no to binding “global governance.”

The Paris AI Action Summit sought to build on the momentum of Bletchley Park (the UK, 2023) and Seoul (South Korea, 2024), attempting to reconcile AI’s existential risks with its economic potential. Its core document, the “Statement on inclusive and sustainable artificial intelligence for people and the planet,” was endorsed by 58 countries, including France, China, and India.

However, the absence of the US and the UK as signatories weakened the prospect of a Western consensus. While the statement emphasized broad principles — inclusivity, sustainability, and narrowing the digital divide — Washington and London argued it lacked “operational clarity” and failed to sufficiently address national security imperatives.

Economically, Paris carried a dual message: a call for massive investment in Europe’s AI infrastructure — notably through the EU’s InvestAI initiative, which aimed to mobilize 200 billion euros — and a plea to reduce bureaucratic barriers to avoid falling behind the US and China. Politically, the summit reflected a European-led push for comprehensive standards. Yet, without American participation, its momentum faltered, leading analysts to label it a “missed opportunity.”

In the struggle over who will write the rules of tomorrow, the choice is simple: contribute to the drafting of the standards now, or be forced to import rules later that do not reflect local priorities.

Dr. Abdel-Hameed Nawar

This followed a path set by the Bletchley Park AI Summit, which focused on existential risks, and the Seoul AI Summit, which shifted the emphasis toward practical innovation and inclusivity. Together, these summits formed the early architecture that Paris sought to refine — before New Delhi expanded it into a broader developmental agenda.

The India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi (Feb. 18-19) adopted a different lens under the banner “AI for All.” 

Its central document, the New Delhi Declaration on AI Impact, secured a major diplomatic win: endorsement by 86 countries, including both the US and China.

The declaration broadened the global agenda to include digital infrastructure and social inclusion while maintaining a strictly voluntary, non-binding character. The US position here revealed strategic consistency: Washington rejected the Paris statement because it opened the door to supranational constraints that could limit regulatory autonomy. It embraced the New Delhi declaration precisely because it remained within the realm of "soft" coordination. This reflects a stable US policy — supporting multilateralism only when it preserves technological sovereignty and maximum flexibility in its competition with China.

The New Delhi summit also elevated the voice of the Global South, linking digital infrastructure to the empowerment of developing nations. Economically, the summit was a powerhouse, announcing more than $250 billion in commitments for infrastructure investments, with a specific focus on energy and efficiency.

Together, Paris and New Delhi have rebalanced the global conversation. Paris tied AI to safety and sustainability, while New Delhi added a developmental dimension. Yet the central challenge remains: the absence of binding mechanisms and the structural divide between European, American, and Chinese visions.

The world is gravitating toward distinct regulatory blocs: a stringent European model, a flexible US model, and a multipolar model emerging from the Global South. For policymakers in the Middle East and beyond, the lesson is clear. Nations must define their negotiating positions with care and participate early in shaping standards. In the struggle over who will write the rules of tomorrow, the choice is simple: contribute to the drafting of the standards now, or be forced to import rules later that do not reflect local priorities.

• Dr. Abdel-Hameed Nawar is an associate professor of economics at Cairo University.
 

By the time you read this, someone, somewhere, will have blamed artificial intelligence for something profoundly human.

A student used it to cheat. A company used it to cut corners. A government used it to surveil. A fraudster used it to deceive. The culprit, we are told, is the algorithm. But perhaps the real danger isn’t artificial intelligence. It is natural stupidity.

This is not a fashionable argument. In an era where headlines oscillate between utopia and apocalypse, nuance struggles for oxygen. AI is either our salvation or our extinction. Venture capitalists promise productivity miracles. Doomsayers warn of rogue systems plotting humanity’s demise. Panels are convened. Regulations drafted. Ethics boards assembled.

Yet amid all the noise, we risk misunderstanding the nature of the threat.

Artificial intelligence does not possess malice. It has no ego, no resentment, no ideology. It does not wake up offended, nor does it go to bed angry. It does not crave power or fear irrelevance. It does not spread misinformation because it prefers chaos to order. It does what it is designed and incentivized to do.

The uncomfortable truth is that the harm attributed to AI is, in most cases, a magnification of human flaws. Bias in algorithms mirrors bias in data, which mirrors bias in society. Disinformation campaigns scale because humans create and share falsehoods. Automation displaces workers because executives choose efficiency over reskilling. Surveillance expands because policymakers prioritize control over liberty. The machine may accelerate the impact. But the direction is set by us.

Was that AI run amok? Or was it a business model exploiting predictable human psychology?

Deepfakes can undermine trust. Automated bots can flood public discourse. AI-generated phishing emails can deceive more convincingly than their human-crafted predecessors. In the wrong hands, these tools can destabilize markets, reputations and even democracies. But the “wrong hands” belong to people.

Blaming AI for these outcomes is intellectually convenient. It externalizes responsibility. It suggests that the threat is an autonomous system beyond our control, rather than a reflection of our own incentives and governance failures.

Natural stupidity, on the other hand, is harder to regulate.

Stupidity in this context is not a lack of IQ. It is the failure to recognize limits of technology, of institutions, of ourselves.

Rafael Hernandez de Santiago

It manifests as short-termism in boardrooms, chasing quarterly earnings at the expense of long-term resilience. It appears as regulatory paralysis, policymakers either overreacting with blunt bans or underreacting with laissez-faire complacency. It shows up as digital illiteracy, users sharing fabricated content without scrutiny. Most dangerously, it thrives in overconfidence.

Stupidity in this context is not a lack of IQ. It is the failure to recognize limits of technology, of institutions, of ourselves.

The philosopher Dietrich Bonhoeffer once suggested that stupidity is more dangerous than malice because it resists reason. A malicious person can be confronted; a stupid one is convinced of their righteousness. In the age of AI, this insight feels prescient.

If we truly wish to mitigate the dangers of AI, we must address the human conditions that shape its deployment.

First, incentives matter. Companies will build and deploy systems aligned with profit unless regulation and market demand reward responsibility. Ethical guidelines without enforcement are public relations exercises. Transparency without accountability is theater.

Second, education is essential. Digital literacy should not be an optional skill but a civic necessity. Citizens must understand not only how to use AI tools, but how they work — their limitations, their biases, their susceptibility to manipulation. A society that cannot critically evaluate information is vulnerable regardless of the technology involved.

Third, governance must evolve. This does not mean stifling innovation with fear-driven prohibitions. It means crafting adaptive frameworks that balance experimentation with safeguards. Policymakers should collaborate with technologists, ethicists and civil society, not react after crises erupt.

Finally, humility is indispensable.

We must resist both techno-optimism and techno-panic. AI will not solve all our problems, nor will it inevitably destroy us. It is a tool — extraordinarily powerful, yes, but still a tool. Its trajectory will be determined less by silicon and more by character.

If misinformation spreads faster with AI, we must ask why truth spreads so slowly. If automation displaces workers, we must question why safety nets lag behind innovation. If deepfakes erode trust, we must examine why trust was so fragile to begin with.

AI is a mirror held up to humanity. It reflects our brilliance and our blind spots. It amplifies our creativity and our carelessness. It exposes the gap between our values and our behavior.

The real danger is not that machines will become more like humans. It is that humans, empowered by machines, will refuse to become wiser.

In the end, the challenge of AI is not technical but moral. It demands better judgment, stronger institutions and a renewed commitment to responsibility. We do not need to outsmart our machines nearly as much as we need to outgrow our own stupidity. And that, unlike code, cannot be debugged overnight.

• Rafael Hernandez de Santiago, viscount of Espes, is a Spanish national residing in Saudi Arabia and working at the Gulf Research Center.
 

Sustainable finance is at a new demanding stage. The early days were marked by environmental, social and governance, voluntary reports, and taxonomies, which placed emphasis on transparency and compliance in financial institutions and corporates. 

During this period, ESG became integrated into the mainstream, and the world of sustainable investment had over $35 trillion in assets in 2020 according to the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. Yet, there is growing recognition that disclosure alone is insufficient to drive real-world transformation. ESG ratings differ considerably, which makes them not the sole reliable source for sustainability performance indicators. 

This signals a structural shift. Sustainable finance is now in a position to leverage value-based capital formation rather than allocation driven by labels. In an environment of higher interest rates, capital is no longer cheap and indiscriminate. 

Investors increasingly expect not only economic returns but also developmental and climate results that are quantifiable. The next paradigm will therefore not be defined merely by the source of funds reported, but more importantly by what those funds construct — particularly in infrastructure and development finance. 

The first phase of sustainable finance focused on establishing compliance frameworks that required organizations to disclose financial information based on particular standards. 

The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures  established requirements for companies to disclose financial data together with risk information. However, while reporting standards advanced, actual business activities in many cases remained largely unchanged. 

Evidence now suggests that ESG disclosure does not automatically translate into improved environmental performance, nor does shareholder engagement alone necessarily result in systemic environmental change. Transparency was necessary, but it was not sufficient. 

The emerging phase — sustainable finance based on value — is concerned with productivity, resilience, and long-term asset value. According to a meta-analysis of more than 2,000 empirical studies, the relationship between ESG performance and financial performance is positive in most cases, but it becomes stronger when sustainability is integrated into core business models. True value creation involves allocating capital to assets that generate cash flows while delivering quantifiable societal outcomes. 

Macroeconomic conditions have reinforced this evolution. The period of low-interest rates masked inefficiencies in capital distribution. Since 2022, rising global interest rates have placed risk-adjusted returns back at the center of investor decision-making. The International Energy Agency states that total clean energy investment expanded to $1.8 trillion in 2023, yet the cost of financing renewable projects in emerging markets remains two to three times higher than in developed economies due to perceived risk. 

Achieving long-term climate and development results requires a value-based paradigm grounded in financial discipline, additionality, and de-risked infrastructure investment. 

Majed Al-Qatari

As a result, impact investments must compete on financial fundamentals. Impact funds differ in performance, highlighting the importance of financial discipline. Sustainable finance cannot rely solely on concessional narratives; it must demonstrate sustainable cash flows, asset resilience, and competitive returns. 

Nowhere is this shift more critical than in infrastructure. Infrastructure transitions are net-zero transitions. According to the IEA, more than $4 trillion annually is required by 2030 to achieve climate targets. Energy grids, transport systems, and water networks combine environmental, social, and economic value at scale. 

Infrastructure also aligns structurally with long-term capital. Its stable cash-flow characteristics match the liabilities of institutional investors. More importantly, infrastructure generates measurable outcomes: increased renewable energy capacity, quantifiable emissions reductions, and expanded essential service access for households. The asset-based model positions sustainable finance as a driver of measurable productivity gains rather than abstract commitments. 

Yet the constraint is not global liquidity. The amount of global capital is high; the level of global risk tolerance is low. According to the OECD, trillions of corporate funds remain on the sidelines due to policy uncertainty, currency fluctuations, and regulatory risk in developing markets. Blended finance structures demonstrate that when development banks assume first-loss risk, private capital follows. Multilateral development banks are able to mobilize multiple dollars of private investment for every dollar committed. The core constraint, therefore, is de-risking — not capital scarcity. 

This makes additionality central. Impact must be genuine: financing projects that otherwise would not exist. Government-supported venture funding drives innovation only when it targets genuinely constrained firms. 

Likewise, sustainable investment delivers impact only when it alters corporate cost of capital or investment decisions. Infrastructure and development finance offer stronger avenues for financial and developmental additionality because they operate in emerging, riskier, and underserved markets. 

Institutions such as the World Bank Group and the African Development Bank are increasingly structuring projects, mitigating risk, and crowding in private investors. Blended finance operations have mobilized private capital at record levels. Sovereign wealth funds and infrastructure funds are also increasing climate allocations, recognizing infrastructure as both a climate hedge and an inflation hedge. These actors are increasingly central in shaping climate and development outcomes. 

Ultimately, sustainable finance will be realized not through reporting sophistication alone, but through tangible asset formation and measurable outcomes. The next generation will be judged not merely by ESG scores, but by value created, infrastructure delivered, risks reduced, and private capital mobilized. Achieving long-term climate and development results requires a value-based paradigm grounded in financial discipline, additionality, and de-risked infrastructure investment. 

• Majed Al-Qatari is a sustainability leader, ecological engineer, and UN youth ambassador.
 

With their rapidly advancing economies, young and ambitious populations, and strategic access to both capital and cutting-edge technologies, GCC nations such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others have the potential to dramatically increase life expectancy through smart investments in longevity-focused healthcare systems.

Historically, longevity was seen as the result of personal health choices or access to advanced medical interventions. Today, government investments in areas such as advanced healthcare systems, preventive care, age-related technologies and healthier lifestyles can be the true catalysts for significant increases in life expectancy.

If GCC countries allocate just 1 to 2 percent of GDP toward these areas, the region could experience a rewarding longevity dividend, where life expectancy could rise by 2 to 4 years over the next two decades, transforming not just the health of their populations but also the economic landscape.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE already invest substantial resources in healthcare, which serves as a strong foundation for expanding longevity initiatives.

The UAE government currently spends around 3.5 percent of GDP on healthcare. This includes everything from state-of-the-art hospitals to cutting-edge medical research in fields like biotechnology, gene therapy and regenerative medicine.

Saudi Arabia spends approximately 5 to 6 percent of GDP on healthcare. The country is also heavily investing in healthcare modernization under its Vision 2030 plan. These investments are helping address the rise in chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease, which disproportionately affect the aging population.

When we talk about longevity in the context of public health investment, it is not just about extending life but also about improving quality of life, optimizing healthspan alongside lifespan. This can be achieved by targeting age-related diseases early, making preventive care a focal point of national healthcare systems and encouraging healthier lifestyles for all age groups.

GCC nations are in a prime position to take this step, given their ability to leverage wealth from oil and tourism industries, their growing healthcare infrastructure and their political will to embrace new technologies.

But how exactly can spending 1 to 2 percent of GDP yield such remarkable improvements in life expectancy?

Advancing healthcare systems

Investing in state-of-the-art medical infrastructure will ensure that people live longer, healthier lives. This includes expanding access to cutting-edge treatments and healthcare facilities focused on the prevention and treatment of age-related diseases like Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. It also means embracing digital health, telemedicine, AI-driven diagnostics and personalized treatment plans, which are already beginning to reshape healthcare systems across the region.

By focusing on precision medicine and integrating biomarker technologies that can predict and prevent age-related diseases, these investments can directly increase life expectancy while reducing the economic burden of healthcare in the long run.

Preventive care programs

A major driver of longevity is the ability to prevent disease before it occurs. Many of the top causes of mortality in the GCC, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, can be mitigated or managed with early detection, screening programs and public health education. With targeted investment in preventive care, governments can reduce the incidence of these diseases and ensure that people live longer, more active lives.

This includes implementing nationwide health awareness campaigns, improving access to preventive services like vaccinations and encouraging healthier lifestyle choices such as better diet and exercise habits through public policy.

Age-related technologies

The rapid development of age-related technologies, from biotech and regenerative medicine to robotics and AI, can extend both healthspan and lifespan. For example, stem cell therapies and gene editing could lead to breakthroughs in treating or even reversing age-related conditions. Smart homes and assistive technologies can also improve the quality of life for older people, allowing them to remain independent for longer.

Investments in age-tech, technologies that specifically focus on improving the lives of aging populations, will also help the GCC tackle the economic challenges posed by aging populations, such as pension systems and the cost of healthcare for older people.

Healthier lifestyles

Encouraging healthier lifestyles goes beyond healthcare spending. It is about creating environments that foster well-being. This includes urban planning that promotes active transportation, such as walking and cycling, and creating green spaces that encourage physical activity. Workplace wellness programs and national campaigns that promote mental health will ensure that people live more balanced, fulfilling lives as they age.

With the right investments in infrastructure and public policy, GCC countries can foster a culture of prevention and longevity, leading to a healthier, more vibrant society.

Beyond the obvious health benefits, investing in longevity is also an investment in economic productivity. A healthier, longer-living population means a more productive workforce, people are able to work for longer, contribute to the economy and remain active consumers for decades longer.

A 2 to 4 year increase in life expectancy could also have a positive impact on national productivity levels, potentially offsetting the cost of these investments with increased output and reduced healthcare costs in the long term.

• Dmitry Kaminskiy is general partner at Deep Knowledge Group.
 

Megaprojects in Saudi Arabia and greening programs across the Middle East are reshaping desert cities at a global scale. What succeeds here informs urban resilience strategies from the Mediterranean Basin to South Asia. In this landscape, every tree planting and every irrigation cycle becomes a test of endurance — and a lesson in how to build cities that thrive in arid climates.

Breaking rock, building roots

In places like Riyadh, planting often begins not with soil but with stone. Consolidated rock runs deep, and excavation requires heavy equipment to fracture it. The challenge is not how far down to dig, but how to create a planting medium that matches the scale of the tree above. A simple strategy helps us understand: for every meter of expected canopy radius, a tree needs one cubic meter of planting medium. Depth of the pit should match the root ball, and if excavation goes deeper, the base must be rebuilt with compacted soil to keep the tree stable.

Engineering the underground

Native rock need not be replaced. On-site crushers and sieves turn fractured stone into gravel and coarse sand, which can be blended with soil amendments to create backfill. This has the added benefit of reducing carbon footprint and improving sustainability by minimizing imported materials. Using no more than one part amendment to two parts native material encourages plants to adapt to local conditions. Drainage layers of crushed rock can be added if excess water must escape, though in most cases proper irrigation is the better solution.

When water goes too far

Water is the most precious resource in Saudi landscapes, yet it is also the most common reason trees fail. Overwatering suffocates roots, disrupts drying cycles, and leaves trees vulnerable to disease. The solution is not more water, but smarter water. Healthy landscapes drink in rhythm with the desert: allowing soil to dry between waterings encourages resilience. Reducing water waste also lowers CO2 emissions by cutting energy use for pumping and desalination.

Deep watering is the practice of delivering moisture slowly, through low-flow drip emitters, over a long cycle of several hours — low and slow. This allows water to penetrate the deepest root zone rather than becoming wasted surface runoff. Roots respond by growing downward, anchoring the tree and increasing drought resilience.

Timing watering just before sunrise minimizes evaporation and maximizes absorption.

Scheduling water cycles for the desert environment helps prevent overwatering. Established desert natives thrive on deep watering once every one to two weeks in summer and three to six weeks in winter; moderate water-use species need more frequent cycles of once per week in summer and two to four weeks in cooler months; high-demand ornamentals may need irrigation every few days in peak heat. Younger plants need more frequent water while getting established.

Designing with hydrozones

Hydrozoning organizes the rhythm of watering in the landscape. High water-use zones are placed where people gather —entrances, plazas, shaded seating — where lush vegetation enhances comfort. Surrounding them are moderate water-use zones that provide transition and cohesion. Beyond lies the majority of the landscape — low water-use zones planted with natives and drought-tolerant species, requiring minimal irrigation. This layered approach balances human needs with ecological responsibility.

Lessons from tradition

Saudi Arabia’s landscapes can also draw inspiration from ancient practices. The Nabataeans, who once thrived in hyper-arid regions, mastered desert irrigation through terraces, cisterns, and channels that captured flash floods and stored water safely. Their systems slowed runoff and maintained agriculture. They bring wisdom that informs design across dry regions to meet sustainability targets.

Clay pitcher irrigation, or “olla,” offers a timeless lesson. Porous vessels buried near roots release water only when the soil starts to dry, conserving water and preventing overwatering. Modern adaptations such as SLECI (Self-regulating, Low Energy, Clay-based Irrigation) emitters are being tested across the region. While not ideal for zones that require drying cycles, they are offering promise in gardens and orchards where consistent moisture is desirable.

Toward an Arabian landscape ethic

Saudi Arabia’s greening programs demand not only aesthetic transformation but ecological responsibility. By combining engineered planting pits, precision irrigation, and respect for natural moisture cycles, designers can create resilient landscapes that thrive in desert conditions. Drawing inspiration from clay pitcher traditions roots modern practice in the wisdom of the past.

The desert teaches patience, restraint, and respect for water.

In Saudi Arabia, these lessons are not optional — they are the blueprint for landscapes that endure. Bödeker’s decades of experience creating enduring landscapes in the Arabian peninsula brings this wisdom to every project.

• Stefanie Schur is a landscape architect associated with Bödeker Landscape Architecture.
 

In the fictional city of Techville, the idea arrived wrapped in optimism and spreadsheets. A proposal circulated among policymakers, technologists, and economists: since data fuels the digital economy, citizens should be paid for it. A minimum income, calculated from the value of what people share. Less money, more data. Eventually, perhaps, no money at all.

The proposal sounded progressive, even humane. And that was precisely what made it dangerous.

At first glance, the logic seemed impeccable. Platforms profit from personal data; citizens receive little in return. Why not correct the imbalance? Why not transform exploitation into compensation?

But Techville’s philosophers raised an uncomfortable question: “What happens when being human becomes a revenue stream?” Paying people for their data does not liberate them from commodification — it completes it. What once happened invisibly would now happen openly and permanently. The injustice would not disappear; it would be normalized. The irony was sharp: in the name of dignity, the human being would finally be priced.

In Techville’s debate halls, supporters celebrated a future where people would be “paid to exist.” No bosses, no wages, no stress. But existence is not labor — and treating it as such carries moral consequences. Once income depends on measurable output, even data output, existence becomes conditional. The question shifts subtly from “who you are” to “what you generate.”

Silence, restraint, privacy — these suddenly appear unproductive.

The most troubling irony was this: a system designed to relieve economic pressure would, in practice, pressure people to reveal more, share more, expose more. Consent would remain formal, but necessity would do the convincing.

Techville’s proposal insisted on voluntariness. Citizens could choose how much data to share. Yet ethics does not end at formal choice. A choice made under economic dependency is not neutral. When basic security depends on participation, refusal becomes costly.

In such a system, privacy transforms from a right into a luxury. The poor disclose. The comfortable withhold. Inequality reappears — not in money, but in exposure. A policy meant to democratize value risks stratifying dignity.

Supporters argued that money itself was obsolete. Digital efficiency would replace it. Algorithms would allocate resources better than markets. But money, for all its flaws, has one ethical advantage: it is abstract. It does not require intimacy. A salary does not demand access to one’s thoughts, movements, or relationships. Data does.

In Techville, critics warned that replacing money with data would collapse the boundary between economic participation and personal life. Every action becomes relevant. Every habit, valuable. Every deviation, suspicious. Without money, there would be no distance — only exposure.

Perhaps the most devastating consequence of the data-income hypothesis is what it leaves out. Not everything meaningful produces useful data. Not everything valuable can be optimized. Love that resists patterns. Faith that defies prediction. Suffering that should not be analyzed.

Ethicists argued that once data becomes currency, what cannot be measured begins to fade — not legally, but culturally. It becomes irrelevant. Human dignity, however, is rooted precisely in what escapes calculation.

The promise of guaranteed income often masked a deeper dependence — not on employers, but on systems. If income flows from data valuation, power flows to those who design the metrics. Who decides which data counts? Which behaviors matter? Which patterns deserve reward?

In Techville, the answer was clear: not citizens, but platforms and institutions. The system would not eliminate intermediaries. It would entrench them.

Supporters spoke of “ethical data markets.” But critics pointed out the contradiction: ethics begins where something is not for sale. Once dignity is monetized — even politely — it ceases to be unconditional. History reminds us that many injustices were once justified as fair compensation. The problem was never payment alone, but what payment made acceptable.

Techville ultimately rejected the data-income experiment, not out of nostalgia, but out of ethical clarity. Human dignity requires economic security without surveillance, participation without exposure, and rights without metrics.

Technology can and should support redistribution and welfare. But it must not redefine the human being as a data-producing asset. A minimum income, if adopted, must be grounded in citizenship, not disclosure — in belonging, not extraction.

The debate ended quietly. No dramatic vote. Just recognition that not every innovation deserves implementation. A world without money may sound humane. A world where survival depends on being measured is not. The true ethical challenge of AI is not how to pay people for their data, but how to protect them from becoming it. Progress does not mean turning everything into value. Sometimes, it means having the courage to say: “This is not for sale.”

• Rafael Hernandez de Santiago, viscount of Espes, is a Spanish national residing in Saudi Arabia and working at the Gulf Research Center.
 

In many newsrooms today, a breaking statement can be transcribed, summarized, translated, and shaped into a publishable update before reporters even finish their first cup of coffee. The software does not hesitate. It simply produces.

This is not hypothetical. It is already an operational reality. Artificial intelligence now performs tasks that once consumed entire editorial shifts, from transcription to data sorting, trend monitoring, and structured briefings. What once required hours can now be completed in minutes. For media organizations navigating relentless digital cycles, that efficiency is transformative.

Yet the claim that AI will “replace journalism” misreads what is actually evolving.

This is what I would call “concern,” at least for the time being. It is part of the broader question dominating discussions today: Will AI replace human intelligence? Will it replace humanity?

Although this question, and the debate surrounding it, has become somewhat rhetorical and exhausted, my answer is simple: We created AI, and it will always require human regulation and guidance.

From my perspective inside a newsroom navigating rapid digital acceleration, the tension is not about drafting speed but about defining value. Over time, parts of journalism drifted toward procedural production — rewriting statements, formatting updates, and generating summaries. These functions are necessary, but they are not the profession’s core. AI is not replacing journalism. It is replacing repetition.

Journalism’s enduring value lies in judgment: deciding what deserves prominence, what requires verification, what context is missing, and what should not be published at all. These decisions are rarely efficient. They involve debate, hesitation, and accountability.

An algorithm can generate a logical summary in seconds. It cannot evaluate whether publishing a sensitive detail in a fragile political environment might create unintended consequences. It can detect anomalies in public datasets, but it cannot determine whether amplifying them responsibly serves the public interest.

This distinction becomes particularly significant in regions undergoing rapid digital transformation.

In Saudi Arabia, where Vision 2030 has accelerated technological integration across sectors, media institutions are confronting the realities of AI adoption. Automation promises greater efficiency, multilingual reach, and faster data processing. But alongside opportunity comes responsibility: Who establishes editorial safeguards? Who audits algorithmic bias? Who defines the ethical boundaries of automated content generation?

The conversation is no longer about whether AI tools should be used. They already are. The strategic question is governance.

Without clear editorial frameworks, automation risks weakening credibility rather than strengthening productivity. Speed without oversight can amplify inaccuracies at scale. Efficiency without accountability can erode public trust.

Across the Middle East, approaches differ. Some organizations are rapidly integrating AI into investigative research and audience analytics. Others proceed cautiously, prioritizing editorial control. Both strategies carry trade-offs. Resistance may limit competitiveness. Unregulated adoption may undermine confidence.

The real risk is not technological displacement. It is insufficient governance.

The real risk is not technological displacement. It is insufficient governance.

Mai Anati

Consider investigative reporting. AI systems can now scan thousands of documents in hours, identifying patterns that might otherwise remain hidden. That capacity enhances journalistic capability. Yet deciding which patterns matter — and understanding their social or political implications — still requires human discernment.

Technology accelerates processing. It does not internalize consequences.

This transformation demands new professional competencies. Journalists must understand how algorithmic systems function, where bias enters training data, and how automated outputs should be reviewed before publication. Supervising intelligent systems is becoming as critical as traditional reporting skills.

As automation expands, credibility becomes even more central.

Trust cannot be optimized through code. It is built through consistency, transparency, and responsibility. In highly connected information environments, once diminished, it is difficult to restore.

The narrative of “replacement” therefore oversimplifies a more complex recalibration.

Repetitive functions will continue to decline. Data-heavy processes will increasingly be automated. But the demand for contextual intelligence, ethical clarity, and analytical depth will intensify. In a landscape flooded with machine-generated content, sound judgment becomes increasingly rare — and therefore more valuable.

I do not see AI as a threat to journalism. I see it as a stress test. It forces institutions to clarify what cannot be automated: editorial judgment, cultural literacy, and accountability.

If journalism remains essential in the AI era, it will not be because it outpaces algorithms in speed. It will be because it assumes responsibility for impact — something no system, however advanced, can carry on its own.

Speed is easy. Governance and judgment are not. That is where the future of journalism will be decided.

• Mai Anati is managing editor at The Jordan Times.
 

Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coast is becoming a global test case. Can rapid economic transformation coexist with the protection of one of the world’s most distinctive marine ecosystems? 

As development across the Red Sea region continues to evolve, the Kingdom faces a defining challenge: how to pursue ambitious progress while safeguarding the natural systems that support long-term growth.

Through the Saudi Green Initiative, expanded marine protected areas, and new environmental governance frameworks, biodiversity protection is now a national priority. The next step is execution — embedding science directly into planning and regulation, rather than treating it as a late-stage compliance exercise.

One way to do this is by following animals over time. At KAUST, ongoing satellite tracking studies of marine turtles offer critical insight into how the Red Sea functions as a connected ecosystem. These turtles are not just species of conservation concern; they are indicators of habitat health, migration corridors, and the broader connectivity that sustains marine life.

Recent research, initiated by KAUST Beacon Development and Neom Nature Reserve, demonstrates the importance of sustained field access for actionable science. By monitoring nesting beaches and nearshore waters over multiple seasons, researchers can track how turtles move, where they feed, and how offshore habitats link to critical breeding sites. This monitoring program is made possible through partnerships that provide reliable access in areas undergoing rapid and sustainable development, such as coastal and island zones in the northeastern Red Sea. 

KBD serves as the applied environmental research and consultancy arm of KAUST, enabling translation of scientific findings into decision-ready environmental intelligence that supports both conservation and sustainable development goals.

The findings are clear: much of the documented turtle nesting in the northeastern Red Sea occurs across its coastal and island areas, placing Saudi Arabia at the center of regional responsibility for these species. But the research also reveals that turtles do not remain in a single location. After nesting, they disperse widely across migratory corridors, offshore reefs, and feeding grounds, sometimes crossing national boundaries. In other words, static, site-based protections alone are insufficient.

Ultimately, the Red Sea offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate how large-scale development can proceed with foresight, precision, and resilience.

Dr. Hector Barrios-Garrido 

This has direct policy implications. Marine spatial planning that reflects real-world species movements allows authorities to identify sensitive corridors, guide shipping routes, and direct offshore development away from high-use areas. Integrating ecological data early in project design strengthens environmental impact assessments, reduces delays, and lowers the risk of costly retrofits, making science an enabler, not a hurdle.

There is also a broader economic case. Healthy marine ecosystems underpin tourism, fisheries, and coastal resilience. Marine megafauna and intact habitats are not optional extras; they are economic assets. Protecting them ensures the long-term viability of the Red Sea economy and reinforces Saudi Arabia’s global conservation leadership.

The collaborative work between KBD and Neom Nature Reserve highlights another key lesson: nature conservation requires cooperation. Tracked turtles move across jurisdictional boundaries, using a mosaic of habitats that include both well-protected areas and highly industrialized, intensively used coastal and offshore zones. This spatial complexity underscores the need for coordinated management approaches rather than reliance on single interventions. In this context, shared data platforms and cross-institutional collaboration are essential, and Saudi Arabia is well-positioned to lead this effort, using science to complement environmental governance and policy.

Ultimately, the Red Sea offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate how large-scale development can proceed with foresight, precision, and resilience.

By embedding high-quality ecological data into planning and decision-making, NEOM demonstrates that marine conservation and progress are not mutually exclusive, they are mutually reinforcing.

As these turtles move through the Red Sea, they remind us that today’s planning choices will shape ecosystems for decades to come.

• Dr. Hector Barrios-Garrido is a senior marine megafauna specialist at KAUST.