Regional inequality is an important issue in almost every country. There are almost always more prosperous or more developed regions and less prosperous and less developed regions. The reason is simple. Although it is theoretically possible to have such things as education and health care distributed relatively equally over space, it is impossible for economic resources to be equally or evenly distributed. Some areas have iron or coal or oil, others have hydro power and some areas on the coast can develop as ports, resources and geographical advantages are not equally distributed. Some areas, and China is a good example, are arid or semi-desert and thousands of miles from the coast and from transport routes. Economic development in such areas is difficult if not impossible. As a result, in almost every country, some areas are more economically developed than others, and as a result they tend to have a higher standard of living and better social facilities. It is impossible to provide the same standard of educational or health care in a sparsely populated region, hundreds or thousands of kilometres from anywhere, as it is in a big city. But geographical unevenness apart, the history of economic development leaves a massive legacy. In Britain, some of the poorest areas use to be in parts of the South East before the Industrial Revolution. But then, from 1820s onwards, the development of the major industrial areas of the Black country, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle etc changed the economic geography of Britain and saw the rise of new industrial cities. But, after a century of growing prosperity, the depression of the 1930s and then the de-industrialisation of the 1960s, 70s and 80s saw another transformation creating long lasting problems of 'left behind areas'. Similar processes happened in France, Germany, Belgium, China and the USA.. And today development of Silicon Valley and the high tech clusters of the USA or China overlays a new dimension. Some areas are almost inevitably less developed or poorer than others and many countries have developed regional policy to try to reduce the inequalities and even things up. But it is difficult to transform old industrial areas and it can take many decades to do so and with varying degrees of success. Regional inequality is a persistent problem in almost all countries.

It is almost impossible for things to be distributed equally over space.

Strategic minerals are minerals which countries deem to be particularly important for various reasons - it could be for energy needs, for exports or for defense or high tech industry. What makes a mineral strategic can change over time. Arguably, coal was an important strategic mineral during the industrial revolution and during the steamship era. Before it was replaced by oil, navies had to have coal bunkering facilities to fuel their warships. Today, however, although coal is still very important in countries like India and China where it fuels large numbers of coal fired power stations, it is far less important in most European countries because of the shift towards oil and gas and nuclear energy. But in the modern world, with the threat of climate change, and the shift towards an increasingly electrified and digital economy, the minerals which are increasingly important are copper, lithium, cobalt and various rare earths, used for mobile phones, power cables, electric car batteries and the like. And the important issue is that, like oil and gas, they are not equally geographically distributed. Korea and Japan for example have very little in the way of oil and gas. Copper, which used to be mined in the Mediterranean, is now of immense importance because of its high electrical conductivity. Deposits are concentrated in the central African copper belt which straddles Zambia and Democratic Republic of Congo and particularly in Chile and Rio Tinto Zinc also has a mine in Mongolia. The developed worth is now increasingly dependent on copper. Lithium is found in various places but the world's largest deposits are found in the intermontane basins of what is called the Lithium triangle spanning Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. Cobalt deposits are again concentrated in the Democratic republic of Congo, and are characterized by informal, artisanal, and often illegal mining. The rare earth minerals are found in various countries but 80% of the processing is concentrated in China. So, in all of these examples, geography is extremely important in terms of both the distribution of resources, access and ease of extraction. The geography of strategic minerals is likely to become more important in the future.

Artificial intelligence, or AI, has become an increasingly hot issue in the last year or two. There are major debates about its potential impact on the labour market, on society and on human beings themselves. In this episode, our focus on more restricted, looking solely at the geographical distribution and concentration of AI, and its implications for power supply, for cooling and space. We look at two key elements of AI, the increasing number of large data centres and cloud storage facilities. Both of these involve large sheds, filled with racks of servers, computers and memory or processing chips. They take a huge amount of power and require a lot of cooling. They are overwhelming concentrated in the USA, in Western Europe and in China. The number of data centres in the less developed world is far fewer, which is largely a reflection of the level of economic development and data generation in such countries. We discuss the extent to which it is possible to use the terms AI or digital colonialism, and whether these are appropriate terms for what is perhaps just a reflection of different levels of economic development. In the next episode we will discuss some of the growing raw material needs for AI and electrification including, copper, lithium and rare earth minerals.

In this episode we follow up on the implications of the American capture of President Maduro of Venezuela and President Trump's anouncements about the nature and future of American foreign policy. We apologise if it seems we are paying undue attention to this but it is very important and is radically reshaping the world we live in. President Trump has also announced (again) that the USA needs Greenland for national security, that he will run Venezuela and its oil sales and that he aims to control the western hemisphere: that it the half of the globe which stretches from the mid Pacific to the Greenwich meridian in London and includes both north and south America, Canada, Greenland and the Caribbean. This represents both a pull back from previous American foreign policy which saw itself as a global 'hegemon' running what is termed the rules based international order, to a much more explicit 'America first' focusing primarily on the western hemisphere. This has implications for Europe which president Trump now seems to see as not very important, and for the role of major global powers - notably America, China and Russia. We discuss to what extent, if at all, it is possible to draw parallels with George Orwell's novel 1984 (published in 1948) which envisaged a world divided into three competing power blocs - Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia - all constantly at war with one another. We hope this distopian vision remains just that but it is clear is that President Trump is both responding too and reshaping global political geographies.

This episode looks at the geography and geopolitics of oil and gas - its distribution, its production and consumption. Energy, and particularly oil and gas, are crucial to making the modern world go round and they have been for well over 100 years. Big US oil companies emerged in the 1920s and BP became a major player in Persia (now Iran). Together they account for just over half of world energy use. But the distribution of oil and gas resources is very uneven, as is production and consumption. The USA account for 20% of global oil consumption, followed by China at 15% and then a long tail of other countries with 5% and under. But in terms of production the US accounts for 22%, followed by Saudi Arabia 11% and Russia at 11%. So, the US is roughly in balance in production and consumption but this is relatively new, after the discovery of shale oil in Texas and elsewhere. No less than 44% of world oil and gas is produced by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, which is why the Middle East has long been of major geopolitical importance, particularly for the USA. The North Sea oil and gas discoveries have been very important for both Britain and Norway since the 1960s ,although the North Sea fields are now very mature and production has fallen. Energy costs also soared in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine and oil and gas exports were embargoed. But one of the most interesting aspects of oil and gas is the geographical distribution of proven resources and the fact that Venezuela has the worlds largest oil resources at 300 billion barrels, followed by Saudi Arabia at 267 billion, Iran at 209, and Iraq at 145 billion. Venezuela used to be a major producer until Chavez and then subsequently Maduro took control and nationalized the oil industry. Oil production then slumped. As you will hear at the end, we recorded the episode the evening of Friday 2nd January and woke on Saturday 3rd to find out that President Trump had mounted a military operation to capture president Maduro and put American oil companies in place. Coincidence or what?

The world is undergoing a process of rapid urbanization - the movement of population from rural to urban areas. This is very important because it means that an increasing share of the world's population now live in cities The UN estimated in 2007 that half (50%) the world population now lives in cities and maybe 70%+ by the end of this century. This is a dramatic change from the world of our ancestors which was still overwhelmingly rural. The urban population was still only 30% of the world total in 1950. In China the process has been extremely rapid going from about 15% urban in 1950 to 65%+ in 2025. 75 years ago 85% of China's population lived in rural areas. But although urbanization has speeded up rapidly in recent decades it started a long time ago. It really took off in Britain about 1800 at the start of the industrial revolution During the c19th the population of London rose from 1 million in 1801 to 6.5 million in 1901 and the population of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and other industrial cities rapidly exploded. A similar process took place in the USA in the late c19th and early C20th as cities like New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh and Detroit rapidly expanded. In Europe cities like Paris and Berlin also grew rapidly. But today the rapid urban growth is in the developing world, the Global South, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia where giant mega cities are emerging of over 20 million people cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Delhi, Mexico City and Cairo. Dhaka and Sao Paulo. It is estimated that by 2035 Africa will have 6 cities of over 10 million people with another 17 cities of over 5 million and 100 cities of over 1 million. Africa is the world most rapidly urbanizing region with cities like Dar es Salaam, Kinshasa, Luanda and Addis Ababa among the most rapidly growing. The problem is that while many rural migrants are attracted to the cities by a prospect of jobs, higher income and education, the reality is often very limited. In many rapidly growing there are major problems over the supply of drinking water, sewage and accommodation, and transport systems are often poor or non existent, with residents living 2 hours journey outside the city bycrowded minibus. The continuing urbanization of the world's population offers possibilities and many problems

At the end of November 2025 the US government published America's New National Security Strategy. This punchy, hard hitting, document did not mince its words. The basis of America's new security strategy is very clear:America first. To keep the USA at the forefront of the global economy , technology and defense. It was also clear that the current administration thinks that previous post war American foreign and strategic policy has been misguided and misplaced. It states that America's role is not to be the global proponent of democracy and peace worldwide. Rather, it has to put America's interests first and foremost. There is also a distinct geography to this policy. It is one of hemispheric dominance: the dominance of the western hemisphere stretching west for 180 degrees from the Greenwich Meridian. America sees its sphere of influence being primarily North and South America, stretching up to Greenland but also across the Indo-Pacific Ocean. The primary antagonist is clearly China, Europe is criticized for being weak kneed and Russia is scarcely mentioned except as a potential strategic partner. The Middle East is seen as being now largely sorted out and the rest of the world scarcely gets a mention. American foreign and defence policy under President Trump is reshaping the globe. Here is a link to the document. Its worth a read. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

In this episode we discuss some aspects of how and why geography matters. If we go back a hundred years or so there was an intellectual argument about the extent to which geography determined the future of a country or a region. Those who argued that it did were 'geographical determinists'. A recent example of this is the fascinating 2022 book by Ian Morris entitled 'Geography is Destiny: Britain and the World, a 10,000 Year History'. Put simply, Morris argues that Britain's position as an island on the NW corner of Europe has played a defining role in shaping Britain's history: particularly its rise as a maritime power.

More generally, geographical determinists argued that key aspects of physical geography: latitude, location, temperature, climate, soils, relief etc played a keys role in determining the economic development and history of different parts of the world. Europe developed early because a temperate climate and fertile soils permitted agricultural development etc. Clearly, physical geography does play an important role in shaping the development of different countries and regions. Antarctica has not, and is unlikely to ever, developed as a centre of agricultural production. Similarly with the Sahara, the Atacama and Nabian deserts. You will all be able to think of similar examples.

But there is an important difference between geography determining the development of a country or region and geography influencing, constraining or encouraging development . Klaus and I both argue that geography influences rather than determines (except in very extreme cases). But, that said, it can have very major influences in some cases. In terms of resource development (copper, iron ore, rare earths, oil and gas etc), the development can only take place if the resources are there in the first place. They cannot be conjured up out of thin air. But equally just because a resource is there does not mean that it will be or can be developed. We will pick up this argument in some subsequent episodes

This episode has a slightly different format. I discuss with Klaus Dodds, my co-host, and Mia Bennett of the University of Washington, their new book 'Unfrozen: the fight for the future of the Arctic'. It starts by asking both Mia and Klaus how they got interested in the Arctic and how it is defined. As they note, the Arctic is often defined as those areas north of 66 degrees of latitude (the Arctic circle), where the sun never sets in mid summer and never rises in the depth of winter. Some definitions go down to 60 degrees. The Arctic territory forms part of 8 countries: Russia is the largest with about 50 percent, followed by Canada, then Denmark (Greenland) and the USA, but it also includes Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. Together these countries are permanent members of the Arctic council. The Arctic is inhabited by about 4 million people, mostly in Russia, of whom about a million are indigenous peoples, the others are involved in mining, resource exploitation, military, research etc. But other countries, notably India and China have also become interested in the Arctic, and China now has 5 icebreakers and is interested in the potential of the Arctic route for goods transport. What is clear is that the Arctic is under threat in a number of ways, notably from global warming and parts of the Arctic are warming at 3-4 times or more of the global average. This is causing major changes in vegetation, settlement and forms of living from reduction in ice cover. It also has big implications beyond the Arctic in terms of warming waters. The reduction in ice has important geo-political implications with different countries seeing new possibilities. Klaus and Mia suggest there are three major intertwined issues for the Arctic - that it is becoming increasingly climatically and ecologically endangered, that it faces increasing pressure for resource exploitation and it may become the site for more strategic conflict. The arctic is no longer just a remote place for polar bears and explorers. It is increasingly linked into the modern world in many different ways.

Global population changes are complex but it can be argued that many countries, but not all, fall into one of two groups, each with very different problems. First, there are the relatively poor, low income, developing countries with high birth rates and rapidly growing populations.Most sub Saharan African countries fall into this group. Second, there are richer, developed, countries with low birth rates and a generally slow growing, static or even falling population. Many European countries fall into this category and they face problems of shrinking labour force, an ageing population and growing welfare bills for pensions and health care. Not surprisingly there is a growing global trend for people to try to migrate from the first group to the second. Countries in the first group include Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and many other sub-Saharan countries. In many of the these countries over 50% of the population is aged 18 or under. By contrast, in Japan, the country with the oldest population in the world, some 30% of people are now aged 65 or over and many parts of rural Japan are now shrinking villages of the elderly. The birth rate in Japan is now far below replacement rate (2.1 children per woman) and the countries population is continuing to fall. Many European countries are not too far behind. Italy has 22% of its population over 65 and Finland, Greece, Portugal, Germany, Bulgaria, Croatia, France all have over 20%. But one of the least well known but most remarkable countries is China. It currently has a population of 1.3 bn but this has now peaked and is starting to fall. And, as consequence of Mao's one child policy and the subsequent rapid economic growth, very few families have more than one child and China's population is forecast to almost half by the end of the century on current trends. The problem now facing many affluent developed western countries is the falling proportion of economically active people and a growing, ageing, dependant population of retired people. This poses problems both for the cost of care and the supply of care workers and for expenditure on pensions. Not surprisingly, many young people are trying to migrate from the first group of countries to the second, though both Japan and China have relatively little inward migration from overseas.