When a Cuban family stays awake searching for an essential medicine that is “out of stock,” when a grandfather realizes that the daily necessities are entirely out of reach of his pension, or when a young person resists dreaming of their future amidst blackouts and shortages, politics ceases to be a distant debate and becomes an intimate and painful experience.
In the midst of this harsh and complex daily reality, a question arises that appeals directly to the heart and ethics of the nation: who are the true enemies of the Cuban Cuban people? Is it those who, with successes and failures, attempt to keep the island afloat in the middle of the storm, or those who request, design, or apply the sanctions that keep it on the brink of shipwreck?
Is it acceptable for citizens to question their government's management? I say it is even necessary. It is a civic right. However, where is the consistency and sincerity when, minutes after speaking in the name of Cuba's well-being, they walk hand in hand with those who sustain and deepen the economic blockade that suffocates it, and while threatening and harassing it, the hardships of Cuban men and women seem to them a fair price to achieve “democracy”? Which democracy? Is a discourse of love for the homeland and freedom credible when measures that cut off fuel, food, or medicine needed by the neighbor next door are applauded?
Attempting to set oneself up as a defender of a people while embracing the entity directly responsible for their greatest hardships is a paradox bordering on cynicism. It is not merely a political contradiction; it is a moral and ethical fracture. Doing so in the name of the God who commands us to love our neighbor is a sin, for He Himself previously commanded not to take His name in vain.
Thus, an uncomfortable but necessary question must be asked: is an opposition that adopts the agenda and lives off the funds of the United States government respectable? Dignity is a value that is not financed from abroad. We already know that “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” When the cause being championed depends on the budget of a foreign power, the voice ceases to be one's own, and the project stops belonging to the people, serving instead the interests of the funder. A genuine calling for change is born from painful love for one's own people, not from Washington's tutelage.
In the light of Cuban history, we find definitive answers, incontestable lessons on how leadership and legitimacy are forged. None of the great articulators of Cuban sentiment, none of the men and women who managed to touch the deepest chords of our people and transform the country, ever did so under the protection or financing of a foreign government, much less the one about which Martí warned: “I lived in the monster, and I know its entrails,” in the same unfinished letter to his friend Manuel Mercado, in which he wrote:
“… annexationist activity, less fearsome due to the lack of reality among the aspirants of the legalistic species—without vision or creativity—than due to a convenient disguise for their complacency or submission to Spain, asks it without faith for Cuban autonomy, content only that there be a master, Yankee or Spanish, to maintain them or create for them, as a reward for their services as procurers, the position of prominent men, disdainful of the powerful mass—the skilled and moving mixed-race mass of the country—the intelligent and creative mass of whites and blacks.”
The most universal of Cubans wove the “Necessary War” from austerity, penny by penny, with the selfless help of tobacco workers in Tampa and Key West—emigrated Cubans—never with the sponsorship of the U.S. government, which he viewed with wise and anxious distrust. Half a century later, Fidel Castro and the Generation of the Centenary led a movement that penetrated the popular soul because it was born from the people themselves, financed by the modest peso of the worker, the peasant, and the student, without submitting to any external agenda.
They understood something fundamental: the tactic of foreign backing simply does not work in the Cuban consciousness, because Cubans, from their historical roots, instinctively reject tutelage over their destiny. Why then do the new figures attempting to position themselves as “opposition” repeatedly use that same failed formula?
Perhaps because they have forgotten that those who ask the oppressor for help to solve their problems end up handing over the keys to the house. Or perhaps because it is more comfortable to seek diplomatic applause, scholarships, and financing than to embark on the long, difficult, and genuine path of building a project with and for Cubans. Probably because they do not even believe in their own roles as freedom fighters, or because, as my neighbors in Central Havana say, they simply “don't have what it takes”—they lack arguments, grace, and talent.
The history of Cuba is essentially a history of dignity and human resistance. One can differ, debate, and seek paths to overcome the difficulties that overwhelm us today, but the ethical and non-negotiable limit will always be sovereignty and empathy with one's own people. A true patriot suffers with the pain of their people and never allies with those who coldly and strategically plan their suffering. As popular wisdom has already decreed: the friends of my enemies are not my friends. Whoever chooses to be friends with the enemy of their people inevitably ends up separated from the soul of Cuba.
Translated by Sergio A. Paneque Díaz / CubaSí Translation Staff
At least 25.8 million children and adolescents in Latin America and the Caribbean live in areas where very severe impacts are forecast due to rainfall deficits or excesses associated with the El Niño climate phenomenon.
This figure compels us to view the issue from a different angle: a disaster depends not only on the amount of rainfall—or lack thereof—but also on the conditions in which that water finds those who are most exposed.
A figure that exposes the risk
This data was published by UNICEF on September 30. According to a preliminary analysis, some 25.8 million children and adolescents—approximately one out of seven in the region—live in municipalities or provinces facing forecasts of very severe impacts due to precipitation deficits (associated with drought) or excessive rainfall linked to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
This distinction is important. UNICEF is not stating that 25.8 million minors have already experienced a drought or a flood. Rather, it is identifying the child population living in territories where the most severe impacts associated with these precipitation fluctuations are predicted. The agency itself notes that these estimates may change as the phenomenon evolves.
The warning comes as El Niño gains strength in the tropical Pacific. On September 10, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center reported that the phenomenon was intensifying and estimated a greater than 90% probability that it would reach very strong intensity during the Northern Hemisphere autumn and winter of 2026–2027.
For its part, the World Meteorological Organization placed the probability of it persisting until February 2027 at nearly 100%.
However, it’s essential to clarify that a very strong El Niño event does not produce the same consequences everywhere. In other words, its intensity alone does not determine the magnitude of the local effects it causes. The season of the year, the region, and interactions with other climatic factors shape the outcome.
Therefore, the relevant question for children is not merely where there will be less rain or where there will be excessive rainfall. It’s also about what that rain—or lack thereof—will encounter when it arrives.
Encountering different realities
In Central America’s Dry Corridor, UNICEF anticipates that reduced rainfall could affect agricultural production and increase the risk of food insecurity and malnutrition among families already struggling to access food and safe water.
Disruptions to agricultural activities can also impact school attendance and the continuity of learning.
In other areas, the problem may manifest in reverse. Above-average rainfall is forecast for parts of the Pacific coast of Mexico and several South American countries, bringing a higher risk of flooding, infrastructure damage, and disruptions to schools, health services, and water systems.
In the Amazon region, falling river levels could hinder communication for riverine and Indigenous communities. In other parts of the region, dropping reservoir levels and increased fire risk pose additional threats.
El Niño, therefore, is not a uniform climate experience. For some children, it may mean smaller harvests, less food, and water supply issues. In isolated communities, even a drop in river levels can make accessing services difficult. For others, it could mean a school becomes inaccessible following a flood.
The link between climate and inequality emerges precisely at this intersection, as the same physical phenomenon can have vastly different consequences depending on the resources available to cope with it.
The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) identifies potential health effects of El Niño, including risks of vector-, water-, and food-borne diseases, as well as heat-related conditions, respiratory problems linked to fires, food insecurity, displacement, and disruptions to health services.
It also notes that these effects can be particularly severe for populations already facing poverty, migration, displacement, or limited access to essential services.
The Caribbean: less rain, greater vulnerability
In the Caribbean, UNICEF identifies a particularly critical risk. It anticipates that drought conditions could affect the livelihoods of vulnerable communities in the Eastern Caribbean and Jamaica while simultaneously exacerbating situations in countries like Cuba and Haiti.
This does not mean El Niño is the cause of these crises, but rather that it can add pressure to pre-existing problems.
PAHO has reached a similar conclusion from a public health perspective. Its regional analysis from September identifies the Caribbean as a hotspot for the current and potential impacts of the 2026–2027 El Niño, warning of risks associated with drought, food insecurity, flooding, wildfires, and vector-borne diseases. This makes the difference between a threat and a vulnerability easier to understand. The former relates to the physical phenomenon: a lack of rain, excessive precipitation, heat, or flooding. The latter depends on factors such as housing, access to water, family income, health services, schools, and a community's capacity to prepare and recover.
When water, food, and schooling are all part of the same problem, the less visible connection highlighted by UNICEF’s alert becomes clear.
A drought can reduce water availability and affect agricultural production. A flood can damage a school or a supply system. Service disruptions can lead to health issues. Loss of income can make it difficult to buy food. And a family that must dedicate more time and resources to meeting basic needs, leaving less margin to cope with a new blow.
This does not mean that every one of these effects will necessarily occur in every territory affected by El Niño. These are impact pathways identified by international organizations, and they depend on the specific characteristics of each location.
PAHO summarizes this logic precisely: anomalies associated with El Niño can impact water, food, livelihoods, health, and infrastructure, and the consequences tend to be more severe for populations that already face difficulties accessing essential services.
Inequality, then, emerges not as an automatic consequence of the climate, but as a risk multiplier.
Cuba and its track record of prevention
Cuba's geographic location has historically shaped its climate vulnerability. However, the country has long possessed policies and institutional capacities for disaster readiness, and new initiatives have been documented throughout 2026 to strengthen risk reduction, school safety, early warning systems, and climate change adaptation.
Kamal Kishore, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Disaster Risk Reduction, stated during a very recent visit to the island: "Alignment between national, provincial, and local levels is one of the Cuban system's main strengths. Communities understand the risks they face and have their own mechanisms to respond to them; this capacity is the foundation upon which further progress can be built."
As noted by the Cuba-UN website, the effectiveness of a disaster risk management system depends not only on the quality of its forecasts but also on its ability to translate that information into decisions at all levels, reaching all the way down to local communities.
In this Caribbean nation, achieving such action relies on the integration of scientific institutions, Civil Defense, and government bodies at every level—a coordinated approach that Kishore specifically highlighted.
This coordination is complemented by collaboration among Civil Defense, meteorological and hydrological services, communications sectors, and urban planning agencies; these entities have operated as an integrated system for decades, with their effective functioning proven in practice.
A key strength of this system is its early warning capability regarding threats, which translates scientific data into timely operational decisions. The drought conditions forecast for the coming months bring this connection into sharp focus.
In this context, a major challenge lies in advancing disaster preparedness to prevent or mitigate impacts. The country also has instruments such as La Tarea Vida (Task Life), the State Plan for Confronting Climate Change, approved in 2017, which projects the country's adaptation with a horizon up to 2100.
Within the framework of the United Nations System's cooperation in Cuba, in which the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) participates as one of the 23 signatory agencies of the Cooperation Framework for Sustainable Development, progress is being made on several lines of work with national institutions.
These include collaboration with the European Earth observation program Copernicus, a proposal to the Climate Risk Early Warning Systems initiative to strengthen early warning capabilities and follow up on the workshop regarding seismic risk held in Havana in January 2026.
Cuba’s experience in preparation, early warning, and community organization also holds regional value. Small island states in the Caribbean face similar threats, and the 9th Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction—to be held in Nassau, Bahamas, in March 2027—will provide a forum for sharing these lessons.
During the "Meteoro 2026" exercise, the Presidency of the Republic of Cuba underscored the importance of strengthening preparedness among the general population, command and leadership bodies, and Civil Defense.
During that event last May, President Miguel Díaz-Canel called for response plans to be updated and made concrete on a "defense zone by defense zone" basis. In this context, the forecast for the current hurricane season and the hydrological drought situation were assessed.
Preparing before impact
The figure of 25.8 million therefore holds value beyond the headline. UNICEF presents it not merely as a statistic to tally those affected, but as a tool for anticipation and prevention.
The agency calls for reinforcing nutrition, health, safe water, education, and child protection services—as well as strengthening monitoring systems and anticipatory actions—prior to weather events.
The World Meteorological Organization likewise maintains that the intensity of El Niño increases the likelihood of specific impacts, though it notes that these effects are not guaranteed and must be interpreted according to the specific region and season.
The difference between reacting and anticipating can be decisive for children. A prepared school, a functioning warning system, available safe water, and health services capable of maintaining operations during an emergency do not eliminate the weather phenomenon itself. But their consequences can be mitigated.
El Niño does not choose its victims based on a family's income, the quality of their housing, or their proximity to a hospital. Inequality arises later, when the same phenomenon encounters vastly different capacities to withstand it.
That’s why the figure cited by UNICEF—25.8 million children and adolescents in Latin America and the Caribbean living in areas at high risk from the El Niño climate phenomenon—should not be viewed merely as a climate statistic. It also serves as a risk map for children, who will—regrettably—experience the impacts of El Niño unevenly across the region.
Translated by Amilkal Labañino / CubaSí Translation Staff
CBS News has done it again, publishing a "breaking news" style article that essentially attempted to revive the—conveniently crafted—specter of a US military invasion of Cuba. The piece is authored by James Michael Laporta—a former Marine and "expert" on military matters involving third parties—and its headline says it all: "US military prepares for possible action regarding Cuba."
Indeed, Laporta provides details regarding specific movements ordered by the Army Reserve Command, which directed subordinate units under Southern Command to identify six types of units required to assemble a strike force; they were given a window of 90 to 120 days to respond. In English, this process is known as "readiness reporting."
The first "curious" detail is pointed out by Laporta himself: the document makes no mention of Cuba. Nevertheless, he managed to contact the ever-available "anonymous sources" (often fabricated ones) who interpreted the process as preparation for a potential attack on the Cubans.
The primary issue is that this type of request—even as described in the CBS News article—reflects standard bureaucratic procedures. Like any army in the world, the US military maintains plans to update the readiness status of its troops—covering both combat forces and logistics units, as cited in the article. This procedure is governed by "Regulation AR-220-1" under the Unit Status Reporting (USR) system—a protocol that exists regardless of who is in power in Havana, of course, though for the imperial army, there is always an enemy out there that must be confronted. So, if Laporta’s “breaking news” amounts to nothing more than a routine procedure—meaning he hasn’t exactly “reinvented the wheel”—then what gives it any political, and by extension journalistic, interest is the mere fact that it references Cuba. It really looks like a ploy by the former Marine-turned-journalist to bask in the spotlight for a few hours within the fiercely competitive U.S. media landscape. Yet, this noble ambition (to stand out) does not appear to be his primary motivation.
Several analysts reached an immediate and natural conclusion: CBS News is helping keep that threat—that “specter,” as it has been called—alive to intimidate Cubans and attempt to fracture the surprising resilience of the Cuban people and their leadership in the face of ongoing aggression, which now lacks only a military “chapter” to cover every possible scenario.
Laporta himself has previously engaged in these types of anti-Cuba operations from his computer—working in a safe, comfortable, air-conditioned environment—since his days as a Marine, prowling Afghan terrain at combat stations, are firmly in his past.
For instance, one surely recalls another similar article Laporta published in May this year, in which he revealed that U.S. intelligence was assessing how Cuba would respond to an act of aggression. Frankly, it sounds almost comical; it’s astonishing to see the brazenness with which the media publicizes intelligence agency activities—something unheard of in this turbulent world, and likely illegal (just ask Edward Snowden). And besides, why all this prying into how the Cuban patriots will react, they can ask—openly and directly—any of the militiamen who fought at the Bay of Pigs.
Two months later—though without the signature of former Marine Laporta—CBS News revisited the theme of scaring the Cubans. Citing "anonymous sources," the network speculated that the 101st Airborne Division was analyzing an assault and other "military options" against the island.
In short, it was more psychological warfare—an intrinsic part of the multidimensional hostility the northern neighbor is directing at Cuba. The scoundrels call it "unparalleled pressure," boasting of their own cruelty.
The U.S. Side
This story has other angles—pertaining to the U.S. side—that are worth addressing. Doing so is crucial to fully understanding why CBS News is rolling out this story now, at a time when the political and electoral climate is far from ideal for it.
Indeed, the U.S. Federal "Dis-republic" has its own "operating protocols"—including political timing—for each of its outrages. Take, for instance, the growing unpopularity of the "imperial tradition" of fomenting every possible war to keep the military-industrial complex running.
CBS News’s archives surely contain a wealth of historical data on how news of U.S. military involvement in a foreign war affects the outcome of midterm elections.
Certain examples confirm a pattern associated with this type of electoral scenario: the party in the White House tends to suffer, often losing its congressional majorities. This can be seen in the 1966 elections (due to the Vietnam War), in 2006 (during the aggression against Iraq), in 2010 (the conflict in Afghanistan), and in 2014 (when Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama was making his "heroic" foray into Syria).
In the current context—as has already been explained—Trump is heading into these midterm elections with very slim chances of retaining control of Congress. Among the many reasons for this is the debacle of "his" war in Iran, which is considered the most reviled of them all. Some—undoubtedly inclined toward a bloodless end to "communism in Cuba"—suggest that a way to "save face" would be to attack the island, anticipating it would be an easier enemy to defeat. These are mere pipe dreams, of course, but there are always microphones available for spouting idiocies.
In any case, while the story was still making headlines, the Republicans likely began calculating the potential damage from this minor storm—brewed in the offices of CBS News. They asked Trump himself to step in and calm the destructive winds before the situation spiraled into a full-blown whirlwind at the worst possible moment.
Faced with this situation, the U.S. president—the very man whose threatening rhetoric had fueled talk of a likely military strike on Cuba—simply dismissed the notion of such a folly. He spoke in his characteristic tone—often described as "calculated ambiguity"—adding that the plan was to negotiate with the Cubans rather than use the military for neo-colonial ends.
What happened? It was simple: classic damage control—a move surprisingly uncharacteristic of Trump, who, despite often being wrong in his statements, rarely backs down so easily or openly. To be sure, Trump frequently contradicts himself, but the nuance here is different: his reaction was intended to prevent a tempest in a teapot ahead of November 3rd—just as he is already contending with gale-force winds on other fronts.
Incidentally, viewed from this perspective, what are we to make of the attitude of Marco Antonio Rubio García? He would seem to be the ideal person to put an end to the speculation fueled by CBS News. Yet, there’s nothing but silence—a stark contrast to the Foreign Secretary's reaction.
To give Rubio García some credit, one might concede that he perhaps disagreed with raising the issue during the current election cycle; strictly speaking, however, he cannot evade responsibility for devising this multidimensional aggression—a strategy he has pursued not just recently, but throughout his varied political career, ever since he began being handsomely paid to attack Cuba.
So yes, the strategic blame for this matter—and for articles like the one produced by CBS News—lies with Rubio García. As the saying goes, if you raise attack dogs, every now and then they break loose, lose control, and take actions that are far from ideal.
What’s clear is that CBS News has sent the Trump administration scrambling; this is precisely when politics can become farcical during election seasons like this one. Hours after the President clarified his plans regarding Cuba, Senator Marco Antonio Rubio García emerged from his lethargic silence when asked about his cruel policy toward the neighboring island by the friendly, Trump-aligned network Fox News.
In this context—and adopting a "tempered" presidential tone as he sought a balance—Rubio García promised mistreatment and further punishment for anyone voicing support for the Cuban Revolution. He was likely acting on instructions from the president himself, as there was no desire to alienate the—supposedly—ever-loyal base of the Miami *Cosa Nostra*. It’s exactly as it sounds: Cubans who believe in their Revolution cannot even say so. Just imagine what democracy would look like in the neo-colony that Batista’s heirs have spent decades planning for Cuba.
But returning to CBS News: it remains something of a mystery why they appear to favor the Democratic campaign—though, in fairness, one can rule out the idea that they are actually working for the Democrats. CBS News’s "hidden reasons" are likely more peculiar—for instance, whether a story helps boost ratings. Ratings are always elusive yet attractive due to the revenue a boost generates; what better way to achieve that than with a news story that, sensibly speaking, has no place in the current discourse?
The problem with the network—and with the great Laporta—is their complete lack of professional ethics. They call this way of operating "rumor-mongering"—a practice that is, incidentally, not exclusive to CBS News but characterizes the entire major U.S. press (with exceptions that merely prove the rule), all of which operate outside the realm of morality.
Thus, this case involves not only a lack of ethics but also cheap manipulation of the issue. It distorts something that Laporta—a recognized "expert" on military matters—ought to understand: the difference between a "normal" organizational procedure and a special contingency. Whatever the reason, with these practices CBS News is shooting itself in the foot and contributing to a loss of credibility; quite simply, they demonstrate that they are utterly useless as a source of information. Cuban authorities are right to keep this specific—yet recurring—evidence firmly in mind. The public—both in Cuba (the apparent target of this media operation) and in the United States (who pay for CBS News’s mediocre service)—ought to react in the same way. It is therefore appropriate to denounce such operations, unmask them, and refuse to let a single fabrication slide.
As for Cuba, it will continue with its own defense contingency plans, free from unnecessary fanfare or journalistic manipulation. If the enemy wishes to know how they would be received on this indomitable island in the event of aggression, they are welcome to find out for themselves—though such information is of little to no use to the dead. Perhaps—just perhaps—Laporta might then report on how mistaken they were, arrogance notwithstanding.
CBS News speculates, while a steadfast Cuba prepares and continues its path of resistance. And to Rubio García, we reiterate: Cubans will remain stubborn and unyielding, loudly proclaiming that *We Shall Overcome!*
Translated by Amilkal Labañino / CubaSí Translation Staff
One tends to assume that someone who plays a negative, destructive character cannot offer an optimistic perspective on humanity.
That’s what I thought was the case with Arnold Schwarzenegger—a former Republican, former Governor of California, and famous actor known for playing the Terminator—who has since become a committed environmental advocate and an opponent of the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump.
I don't know why he didn't make himself known when I spotted him 38 years ago crossing 23rd Street, heading incognito toward the Hotel Habana Libre; I told the photographer Jorge Valiente to take a picture of him—a shot I titled *Terminator in Havana*; Perhaps it was to avoid jeopardizing the interview that our Commander-in-Chief granted to his wife—journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of John F. Kennedy—while turning down dozens of other media outlets that sought to interview the leader of the Cuban Revolution. The text of that interview was later distorted in Miami.
From that moment on, I sensed that this man—a competitive bodybuilder and father of five (four of them with Kennedy’s niece)—did not fit the usual stereotype of the cunning pretender masquerading as an altruist.
The actor considers it "nonsensical" for U.S. authorities to "politicize" environmental issues by "framing them as a matter of left versus right," and he is convinced that Trump shares something with his character, the Terminator: both want to "destroy progress and the future."
HE IS A TERMINATOR, HE EMPHASIZED
"He is a Terminator," the actor stated in an interview with EFE, referring to the character he portrayed—which also gives its name to the eponymous science-fiction film series. Schwarzenegger is a fervent activist and environmentalist, known for repeatedly criticizing world leaders—including the U.S. president—for their lack of action in the fight against the climate crisis.
This week, the U.S. president announced his intention to revoke California's authority to set its own limits on vehicle pollutant emissions. This measure—described by some media outlets as a "declaration of war on California"—aims to curb vehicle production and make cars "considerably safer," according to Washington.
Schwarzenegger has joined the chorus of criticism sparked by the new measure: "What he is doing is criminal! He is getting rid of environmental regulations and laws that were passed by previous presidents."
In fact, by establishing its own rules on vehicle pollution in 1996, California became a pioneer in this type of "green" policy; according to Schwarzenegger, its "tough environmental laws" serve as a "success story" for the entire world.
The former governor dismissed as "nonsense" the fact that U.S. authorities are "politicizing the [environmental] issue by framing it as a matter of left versus right," when, in reality, environmental regulations are perfectly compatible with economic development.
Against this backdrop, Trump flippantly announced Schwarzenegger's "death"—to which Arnold replied that he was still alive—and challenged him to compare tax payments. This is a particularly negative issue for the current president, a billionaire who pays no taxes most years by claiming losses backed by legal entities he controls. It is worth recalling that on June 1, 2017, Trump announced his country's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement—ratified by 195 nations in the French capital in December 2015—sparking outrage among both the scientific community and much of the global political establishment.
According to the leader, the agreement entails "disadvantages" that benefit "exclusively other countries" and results in "job losses, lower wages, factory closures, and a massive decline in economic output."
WITH GRETA THUNBERG
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg revealed that Schwarzenegger offered to lend her one of his electric cars so she could travel in a more eco-friendly way while in North America.
During an appearance on a joint Norwegian-Swedish talk show, the young activist stated that she plans to head to Montreal, Canada, to continue her climate crusade. When the host asked how she intended to get there, Greta replied that although many people had offered to lend her an electric car, Schwarzenegger’s offer was the "most fun": "He offered me his electric vehicle if I want it."
The 16-year-old accepted the offer to help achieve her goal, Yahoo! News reported.
In early September, the Hollywood star—known for repeatedly criticizing world leaders over their inaction regarding the climate crisis—posted a photo on Instagram of his Hummer H1 SUV, which had been converted to run on electricity. She included the message: "My Hummer is proof that you can turn any car into a clean machine." Although it was rumored that this would be the model the actor—who is also an environmentalist—would make available to Thunberg, a spokesperson for the actor confirmed that it is actually a Tesla Model 3. "Driving his electric Hummer across the country would be quite a challenge, so it won't be her personal car," the spokesperson told the American automotive magazine *Car and Driver*.
According to the representative, Schwarzenegger had asked Greta to call him "if she needed anything." As soon as it became known that she needed help arranging her transportation in North America, the actor offered to provide her with a climate-friendly electric vehicle for the duration of her stay. "Greta can travel across the U.S. and Canada using only electric power," he explained.
Translated by Amilkal Labañino / CubaSí Translation Staff
Войти