Friday, August 19, 2022

Prince William GREEN charity invests in bank tied to fossil fuels


Britain's Prince William speaks during a meeting with Earthshot prize winners and finalists at the Glasgow Science Center on the sidelines of the COP26 U.N. Climate Summit in Glasgow, Scotland, Nov. 2, 2021. The conservation charity founded by the prince, who launched the Earthshot Prize, keeps its investments in a bank that is one of the world’s biggest backers of fossil fuels. 
(AP Photo/Alastair Grant, Pool, File)

LONDON (AP) — The conservation charity founded by Prince William, second in line to the British throne and who launched the Earthshot Prize, keeps its investments in a bank that is one of the world’s biggest backers of fossil fuels, The Associated Press has learned.

The Royal Foundation also places more than half of its investments in a fund advertised as green that owns shares in large food companies that buy palm oil from companies linked to deforestation.

“The earth is at a tipping point and we face a stark choice,” the prince, a well-known environmentalist, is quoted saying on the websites of the Earthshot Prize and Royal Foundation.

Yet in 2021, the charity kept more than 1.1 million pounds ($1.3 million) with JPMorgan Chase, according to the most recent filings, and still invests with the corporation today. The foundation also held 1.7 million pounds ($2 million) in a fund run by British firm Cazenove Capital Management, according to the 2021 filing. As with JPMorgan, it still keeps funds with Cazenove, which in May had securities linked to deforestation through their use of palm oil. The foundation invested similar amounts in both funds in 2020, its older filings show. As of December 2021, the charity also held more than 10 million pounds ($12.1 million) in cash.

The investments, which the Royal Foundation didn’t dispute when contacted by the AP, come as top scientists repeatedly warn that the world must shift away from fossil fuels to sharply reduce emissions and avoid more and increasingly intense extreme weather events.

Financial experts say investments like those of the foundation can be blind spots for charities and philanthropies. As climate change is an increasing area of attention for foundations and others, organizations have sometimes struggled to recognize where their own investments lie and align them with more environmentally friendly choices, despite growing numbers of ways to steer clear of funds linked to fossil fuels.

Like the Royal Foundation, in recent years other foundations, including high profile British charities like the National Trust and Wellcome Trust, also have faced criticism for investments with strong connections to fossil fuels or environmentally harmful practices. Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates announced that he divested his foundation’s direct oil and gas holdings in 2019.

Charities that are talking the talk “also need to walk the walk,” said Andreas Hoepner, professor of Operational Risk, Banking and Finance at University College Dublin, who helped design several European Union climate benchmarks and has sat on its sustainable finance group.

“There are funds that are more sustainably oriented,” Hoepner added, pointing to a dozen alternatives to the JPMorgan product that are marketed as sustainable.

There are also alternatives to Cazenove’s sustainability fund. For example, funds manager CCLA caters to churches and charities and does not invest in businesses that get more than 10% of their revenue from oil and gas. Another option is Generation Investment Management, founded in part by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.

The Royal Foundation said by email that it had followed Church of England guidelines on ethical investment since 2015, and goes beyond them.

“We take our investment policies extremely seriously and review them regularly,” the statement said.

The foundation said management fees paid to JPMorgan were small, but declined to provide a figure.

It’s not clear what role, if any, Prince William had in investment decisions, as he did not respond to AP requests for comment. JPMorgan Asset Management in an email declined to comment on questions about charities investing in their products despite its record of financing fossil fuels.

Bloomberg data show JPMorgan has underwritten more bonds and loans for the fossil fuel industry and earned greater fees than its competitors in the five years up to 2021.

Environmental NGO Rainforest Action Network looked at direct loans and stock ownership along with bonds and estimated that between 2016 and 2021, JPMorgan’s banking arm financed fossil fuel companies with some $382 billion. This was more than any other bank.

“Major investors have their pick of companies to manage their assets, and mission-driven institutions have options well beyond the world’s worst fossil fuel bank,” said Jason Disterhoft, senior energy campaigner with Rainforest Action Network.

As one of the world’s biggest banks, JPMorgan is also a leading financier of green projects, and has set a target of investing $1 trillion in these over the next decade. However, it made about $985 million in revenue from fossil fuels compared to $310 million from green projects since the Paris Agreement in 2015, about three times more, according to Bloomberg Data.

Compared to some other charities, the Royal Foundation’s investments are small, with little impact on climate change. But they are not in line with the ethos of the foundation, which lists conservation and mental health as main points of emphasis, or Prince William’s public statements. His Earthshot Prize, a “global search for solutions to save our planet,” awards grants of up 1 million pounds ($1.2 million) each year to projects confronting environmental challenges, according to the the charity’s website, which suggests banks as among potential recipients. In July, the Royal Foundation announced that the Earthshot Prize had become an independent charity and Prince William would be its president.

Through launching and awarding the prize and in other public appearances, Prince William has been outspoken on the environment for years. He has argued that entrepreneurs should focus their energies on saving the Earth before investing in space tourism, encouraged parents to consider how their children don’t have the same outdoor opportunities they had and urged conservation.

“Today, in 2022, as the queen celebrates her Platinum Jubilee, the pressing need to protect and restore our planet has never been more urgent,” the prince said in June during Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee.

The policies of the Royal Foundation do not allow ownership of stock in oil companies, tobacco or alcohol. But profits from the Royal Foundation’s account could enable JPMorgan to loan more money to the many oil companies it backs, allowing their expansion. In the same way, investing in companies tied to problems with palm oil supply could help fund unsustainable practices.

While the Cazenove fund is marketed as “sustainable,” as of May 31 the fund held almost $6 million of shares in Nestlé, and shares worth $8.1 million in Reckitt Benckiser, according to Morningstar Direct data. Both Nestlé and Reckitt Benckiser have faced controversy over their palm oil supply. Clearing rainforests to make way for palm oil plantations is one of Southeast Asia’s biggest drivers of deforestation.

Nestlé is the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturer, while Reckitt manufactures popular U.S. brands including Lysol and Woolite, and Vanish and Dettol, familiar in the U.K.

A 2021 investigation by the environmental NGO Global Witness said both companies were sourcing palm oil via intermediaries from illegally deforested areas in Papua New Guinea. The plantations responsible were also accused of corruption, use of child labor and paying police to attack protesters.

Another 2021 report, by sustainability analysts Chain Reaction Research, said both companies purchased palm oil from an Indonesian firm that has an affiliated mining project accused of deforestation in an orangutan habitat.

An investigation in 2020 by Chain Reaction Research found that more than 500 hectares (1,235 acres) — over 1,000 American football fields — of rainforest in Indonesia’s Papua province were felled by a supplier to Wilmar, a giant food and oils producer, from which both source their palm oil.

David Croft, head of sustainability at Reckitt, said no tainted palm oil entered its products from the Papua New Guinea properties, while conceding their mills were previously in its supplier list. An intermediary company linked Reckitt to the Indonesian mining conglomerate in its supply chain, he said, and it was investigating. Croft said they have had “active discussions” with Wilmar, which stopped sourcing from the Papua plantation in January 2022. In a public statement published in response to Chain Reaction’s investigation, Wilmar disputed the cleared area was high conservation value forest.

Despite being a “relatively small user of palm oil,” Reckitt knows there is more to do, said Croft, and is accelerating its progress. Croft said Reckitt could not get all the product it needs from certified producers before 2026.

Emma Keller, head of sustainability at Nestlé U.K. and Ireland, said the Wilmar case was to be investigated. Nestlé engages with suppliers that fall short to help them change and monitors performance, she said.

Sixty percent of Nestlé’s palm oil supply was certified as sustainable by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, an industry-organized effort, in 2021, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature. For Reckitt, that figure was 15.3%.

Keller said that by winter 2021, more than 90% of Nestlé palm oil was deforestation-free and it will achieve zero-deforestation status by the end of 2022. It uses supply chain maps, on-the-ground verification and satellite monitoring for verification. Nestlé was moving towards “a model for conserving and restoring the world’s forests,” Keller said.

Lily Tomson, of the responsible investment charity ShareAction, said Cazenove had shown some leadership on sustainable investing, but there “remain areas charities such as the Royal Foundation can push them on.”

Investors can vote on key environmental issues in companies where they hold shares, for example setting targets to align with the Paris Agreement, or on climate lobbying. Yet Cazenove’s parent company, Schroders, voted against 22% of environmental resolutions last year, ShareAction research has found.

Kate Rogers, head of sustainability at Cazenove Capital, said the company engaged with Nestlé and Reckitt, and has seen progress on deforestation.

Environmental factors are ingrained in the company’s decision-making, she said, every investment assessed for sustainability. Cazenove has committed to eliminating commodity-driven deforestation from its investments by 2025 and said a new voting policy meant that as of June 2022, the firm had voted against 60 directors of companies it invests in over a lack of climate action.

Dr. Raj Thamotheram, former head of responsible investing at both a $109 billion British university pension fund and AXA Investment Managers, said foundations should be better regulated, with annual reports made to detail how well their investment strategy aligns with their mission.

Thamotheram, now an independent adviser, called unsustainable investments a “cultural and governance blind spot of huge proportions,” and said they were endemic in the charity sector.

“It’s the status quo approach and it needs shaking up,” he said.

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Prince William to attend New York climate summit


By Robert Jobson
T

he Duke of Cambridge flies to New York next month for a climate summit on his first trip to the US since Harry and Meghan moved there.

William will make the solo trip on September 21 to attend an Earthshot Prize innovation summit which aims to amplify calls to speed up efforts to repair the planet.

The duke, who will be joined by previous winners of his £50 million global environmental competition, will make a speech alongside billionaire media mogul and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But William is unlikely to make the journey from the East Coast to the West Coast to see his brother, the Duke of Sussex.

The pair are also not expected to meet during the Sussexes’ whirlwind trip to the UK at the start of September.

It is the first time William has visited America since Harry and Meghan decamped across the Atlantic to California in March 2020 after quitting the working monarchy.

The second Earthshot Prize awards ceremony is set to be held in Boston in December, after the inaugural event at Alexandra Palace in north London last year.

Mr Bloomberg, a key backer of the Prize, said, “Accelerating the world’s climate progress requires us to take urgent, ambitious action from every angle.

“As global leaders get set to gather in New York, the Bloomberg team is working with our partners Prince William and The Earthshot Prize to showcase the most innovative climate solutions and help them spread more quickly.”

Founded by Prince William and The Royal Foundation in 2020, The Earthshot Prize aims to discover and scale up groundbreaking solutions to repair the planet.Hannah Jones, chief executive officer of the Earthshot Prize, said. “We will ask the brightest minds to turn urgent optimism into action

Among the first winners were projects restoring coral reefs, redistributing unwanted food to the disadvantaged, teaching game poachers to gain farming skills and a project battling the issues contributing to air pollution in India.

Harry Potter star Emma Watson, wearing a gown made of 10 wedding dresses from Oxfam, and Dame Emma Thompson were among those who walked the “green carpet” at the first awards ceremony last October.

The Earthshot initiative was inspired by former US president John F Kennedy’s Moonshot project in 1961 which set scientists the challenge of placing an astronaut on the moon and returning him safely — and in the process helped advance humanity’s achievements.

Prince William praises 5-year sentence for ivory, rhino horn trafficker


Moazu Kromah was extradited to the US from Uganda in 2019 after agents intercepted packages in New York containing rhino horns

By Brie Stimson | Fox News

Prince William praised a 63-month sentence for a man who trafficked in rhino horns and ivory from elephants as a "significant victory" this week.

Moazu Kromah, 49, who made millions of dollars illegally poaching and trafficking endangered animals, was sentenced to more than five years in prison Thursday in a New York courtroom.

Kromah, who lived in Uganda, had helped poach more than 35 rhinos and 100 elephants between 2012 and 2019, according to the Southern District of New York. He was extradited to the U.S. in 2019.

"Today’s sentencing demonstrates both what is possible when a coordinated international response is brought to bear against the illegal wildlife trade, and why it is essential," William said in a statement after the sentencing. "This is a significant victory and a landmark case. For over a decade, its complexity has been skilfully met by a global alliance of international law enforcement agencies, governments, NGOs and private sector organisations, including a number of brilliant United for Wildlife partners."


Prince William feeds a baby elephant in the wild elephant valley in Xishuangbanna, or Sibsongbanna Dai autonomous prefecture, southwest China's Yunnan province on March 4, 2015.
 (Photo credit should read STR/AFP via Getty Images)

In March, Kromah pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wildlife trafficking and two counts of wildlife trafficking.

William continued that the sentencing was "proof that we have the tools to combat this insidious crime" and a "testament to international cooperation."

He said because of those involved in the case, "hundreds of endangered animals and the communities that live alongside them have been protected, sending the strongest possible message that together we can defeat the illegal wildlife trade."

Prosecutor Damien Williams agreed. "Today’s sentence demonstrates that those who are responsible for the decimation of global populations of endangered and threatened animals protected by international agreements will face serious consequences," he said.


Kate, Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge feed baby elephants during a visit to the Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation and Conservation at Kaziranga National Park on April 13, 2016 in Guwahati, India. (Photo by Samir Hussein/Pool/WireImage)

Kromah, along with two co-conspirators, Amara Cherif and Mansur Mohamed Surur, were members of a crime enterprise based out of Uganda and other African countries that engaged in large-scale trafficking and smuggling, including approximately 190 kilograms of rhinoceros horns and at least 10 tons of elephant ivory worth at least $7.4 million.

In March and June of 2018, U.S. agents intercepted separate packages containing rhino horns intended for buyers in Manhattan.

The prince has been a vocal advocate for conservation for years, including the nonprofit United for Wildlife, which he founded and was involved in bringing Kromah to justice, according to People magazine.
 

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Royal Patron of Tusk and President of United For Wildlife, assists rangers in northern Kenya to move "Matt", a tranquilized bull elephant, while a wildlife vet fits his new satellite tracking collar to monitor and protect him from poachers. (Photo by Chris Jackson/Getty Images)

William also founded the Earthshot Prize, which awards grants for environmentalism.

The Royal Foundation, a charity founded by him, however, controversially keeps investments in a bank that backs fossil fuels and also invests in a fund that advertises as green but owns shares in large food companies that buy palm oil from companies linked to deforestation.

The Royal Foundation said by email to the Associated Press that it had followed Church of England guidelines on ethical investment since 2015, and goes beyond them.

"We take our investment policies extremely seriously and review them regularly," the statement said.


Federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'Stop WOKE' Act


A federal judge on Thursday suspended Florida’s Individual Freedom Act, likening the legislation passed by Gov. Ron DeSantis to the TV series "Stranger Things." 
 Joe Marino/UPI | License Photo

Aug. 18 (UPI) -- A federal judge on Thursday suspended part of Florida's Individual Freedom Act, likening the legislation to the TV series Stranger Things.

The ruling now blocks parts of the law barring companies from providing workplace bias training.

"In the popular television series Stranger Things, the 'upside down' describes a parallel dimension containing a distorted version of our world. Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down," Northern District of Florida Tallahassee Division Judge Mark Walker wrote in his ruling.

The legislation is commonly referred to as the Stop WOKE Act, and "impermissibly burdens such speech," the judge wrote.

The act was passed in March and limits what companies and educators can say, train or teach when it comes to racial issues, particularly Critical Race Theory.

"Florida's Legislators may well find Plaintiffs' speech 'repugnant.' But under our constitutional scheme, the 'remedy' for repugnant speech 'is more speech, not enforced silence,'" Walker wrote in his ruling.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the Legal Defense Fund and a national law firm. It argues the law amounts to censorship and is motivated by racism.

Walker has blocked multiple laws signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.


"Normally, the First Amendment bars the state from burdening speech, while private actors may burden speech freely. But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely," Walker wrote in the ruling.

"If Florida truly believes we live in a post-racial society, then let it make its case. But it cannot win the argument by muzzling its opponents."

Neither DeSantis nor the Florida Department of Education had issued a public comment on the ruling by 6 pm ET Thursday.

New Suit Against Florida's Stop WOKE Act

Scott Jaschik
August 19, 2022

A group of professors on Thursday sued Florida over its Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act, widely called the Stop WOKE Act.

The law prohibits teaching things (including in higher education) that may make students feel uncomfortable. Also on Thursday, a federal judge blocked a portion of the law that affects private businesses.

The new suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Florida ACLU, challenges the part of the law that covers higher education.

"All educators and students have a right to teach and learn free from censorship or discrimination,” said Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “The First Amendment broadly protects our right to share information and ideas, and this includes educators’ and students’ right to learn, discuss, and debate issues around systemic racism and sexism. In an effort to prevent progress towards racial justice, the Stop WOKE Act deprives educators and students of important tools to challenge racism and sexism. We urge the court to put an immediate stop to this discriminatory classroom censorship bill.”

On tour, Pakistan's first Grammy winner defies boundaries with her music

This year, Arooj Aftab became the first Pakistani artist to win a Grammy for her rendition of a famous ghazal by the legendary Mehdi Hassan. She spoke to DW about the challenges she faced on her way.

Arooj Aftab performing at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in California this year

"I wanted to make music that I crave, that I hadn't really found, that I wanted to hear," singer Arooj Aftab told DW. However, making the kind of music she wanted to hear required musical tools and a vocabulary that she lacked as a young person in Lahore, where music was not really a career option for most. 

To make things worse, she felt she didn't fit in. “When I was growing up, I felt that to dress or look different, to think differently, caused a lot of friction and made me feel like I wasn't fully accepted. Not being able to imagine freely or be yourself is not healthy, and is like death for an artist," said Aftab.

Arooj Aftab defies the duality of identity: the Pakistani expat in the US

 views identity as something complex and nuanced

She did, however, have the power of the internet at her fingertips: At the tender age of 18 in the early 2000s, she recorded a raspy jazz cover of Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah." Her cover was shared widely via file-sharing sites like Napster, MySpace and Limewire. 

The song went viral in Lahore and, most importantly, gave Aftab confidence in her voice and expression. This success encouraged her to take out a student loan and apply to Boston's Berklee College of Music, where she was accepted.  



Inclusive music  

Since then, Aftab has learned the tools of the trade, becoming a music composer and producer in addition to a singer based in the US. She can completely transform preexisting songs into new, complex pieces with their own unique character.

Yet her music is not just rehashing old numbers, she says. "I get irritated when my music is called a 'cover,' because it's not that. When you render something, especially if it is so old that is almost public domain, you are taking its root but building something original, something that is new and not done before; it is in the now," she stresses.  

After studying music in Boston, Aftab found another home in New York

Constructing a sense of place is important for Aftab's music because of its transnational quality. Her music doesn't feel quite Pakistani nor Western. It transcends duality, provoking the listener to imagine a new place: one of inclusion.   

"This generation is really bold and demands things, they want equality," she asserts, adding that young people now don't want to be limited to fixed categories. "For years, Asian artists were pushed to the sidelines — but now there is an emerging space, opening up the world to more to beautiful things, which always existed but weren't known," Aftab says. 

Urdu is 'beautiful' 

Aftab's third album,"Vulture Prince," features her most commercially acclaimed rendition of Pakistan's legendary ghazal singer Mehdi Hassan's song, "Mohabbat" ("love" in Urdu).  

Arooj Aftab, here in New York, reflects that Urdu is 'a beautiful language'

The ghazal is a musical rendition of couplets that poetically engage with the trials and tribulations of love. Arooj's interpretation of the song won her the 2022 Grammy for Best Global Music Performance. It had also landed her a spot on former US President Barack Obama's 2021 summer playlist. Now, Arooj and "Mohabbat" are as good as mainstream. 

The artist is committed to singing in Urdu, as she feels it is a "very beautiful and a good language to sing in. I get to do the things I want to do with my voice, the vowels. The poetry is nostalgic, playful, light — but haunting as well," says Aftab. 

As a composer and producer, Aftab understands the intricacies of music, and puts much thought into "the amalgamation of sounds and instruments that spin a complex web."

Bringing disparate and diverse instruments together helps open up her music to a wider audience. "Whoever is listening can hopefully hear something they identify with or like, like jazz or pop. For the people who understand Urdu or Hindi, it's like a secret for them to enjoy," Aftab explains. 

Trying to fit in

In 1997, her compatriot, the famous sufi singer Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, was nominated for two Grammys, but did not win.

Arooj Aftab at the Grammys in April 2022

To her credit, Aftab is the first Pakistani to have ever won a Grammy. Now that she has won the highest accolade in music, she has received high praise for her hard work also at home.  

"My family loves music and is quite liberal, but they did not understand what I was trying to do. It is a bit sad that it took winning a Grammy for some people to finally think that what I was doing for so many years was worthwhile," she shares candidly.

However, after returning to Pakistan following the Grammy victory, Aftab realized how the city of Lahore is offering more space and acceptance to emerging musicians.  

Currently, Aftab's is touring "Vulture Prince" in Europe and the US, and she is returning to Germany after almost seven years to perform. She has a concert on August 18 in Cologne alongside other shows in Berlin and Hamburg later in the month.

"The German audience is really great. They really listen so closely with respect and integrity, because they are one of the societies with the privilege of having the resources, time and energy to appreciate music and build a thriving industry," she says. 

Edited by: Manasi Gopalakrishnan and Louisa Schaefer

This article has been updated to clarify the tour location and dates.

Ukraine: Are attacks on nuclear plants legal under international law?

As fears rise that there could be a nuclear disaster at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia plant, DW looks at the Geneva Conventions, to which both Russia and Ukraine are signatories. Targeting nuclear plants is not actually banned.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is the biggest in Europe

Since March, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine has been under Russian occupation. Since late July, the largest nuclear plant in Europe has been shelled repeatedly, with Kyiv and Moscow blaming each other for the attacks. This has sparked fears of a nuclear disaster. Last week, the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting on the situation without getting any closer to a solution.

It is not the first time in this war that the question of nuclear safety and security has been raised. This is not only about the potential use of nuclear weapons — Russian President Vladimir Putin has openly expressed this thought — but also about nuclear power stations being used as military targets.

The Ukrainian president has accused Russia of nuclear blackmail

Geneva Conventions regulate conduct of war

What does international law say about this? The 1949 Geneva Convention and its subsequent Additional Protocols regulate the conduct of armed conflict and seek to limit its effects. Article 56 of the Additional Protocol (1) of 1977 pertains to the "Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces" and explicitly mentions "dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations."

Since the Russian Federation and Ukraine are both parties to the agreement and have not expressed reservations about the Additional Protocol (1), the regulations apply to both states.

And they are surprisingly detailed. In principle, according to paragraph 1, nuclear power plants "shall not be made the object of attack, even when these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population." Radioactivity is certainly what is meant here.

The issue here is one of the principles of international humanitarian law as consolidated by the Geneva Conventions: The difference between military and civilian targets. These provide for the "general protection of civilian objects, restricting attacks to military objectives."

The first Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949 in Switzerland

Nuclear power stations are not off-limits

But paragraph 1 of the Additional Protocol (1) does not state that nuclear power plants are always off-limits, only to the extent that an attack "may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population." In other words, if it is not expected to cause "severe losses among the civilian population," then it might be permitted under certain circumstances.

Paragraph 2 suggests that a nuclear power plant could become an objective "if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support […]"

However, this is of course a matter of interpretation. In times of war, almost all nuclear power plants will provide electricity to civilians as well as to the military. It is hard to separate the two. But does this entail a "significant and direct support of military operations?" Thus, it is up to the discretion of the observer to evaluate whether a nuclear power plant is a legitimate military target or not.

It is also difficult to prove that an attack is "the only feasible way to terminate" support for acts of war. A potential aggressor has to deliberate and observe the principle of proportionality: Does the military value clearly prevail? What impact would my actions have on the civilian population? And would there not be a less grave means of rendering a nuclear power plant inoperable? Such as destroying power lines so that electricity can no longer be supplied — without entailing the risk of causing radiation? That said, for a population in winter, a power supply disruption can also be grave.

Russian soldiers seized the nuclear power plant in March

Civilian population must be protected

But even if circumstances do justify an attack, the Additional Protocol states in paragraph 3 that in all cases "the civilian population […] shall remain entitled to all the protection accorded them by international law." A warring party would have to do everything possible to protect civilians from radiation, for example, by evacuating the surrounding areas before launching an attack on a plant.

Paragraph 5 is also relevant to Zaporizhzhya: "The Parties to the conflict shall endeavor to avoid locating any military objectives in the vicinity of the works or installations mentioned in paragraph 1." Ukraine accuses Russia of hunkering down at the power plant, effectively using it as a shield to avoid Ukrainian shelling. While Vladimir Rogov, a Russian-backed local official, claimed that Ukraine had launched artillery strikes using US-made howitzers near the power plant and in residential areas.

Qualifying the restrictions, however, the Additional Protocol also states: "Nevertheless, installations erected for the sole purpose of defending the protected works or installations from attack are permissible and shall not themselves be made the object of attack." Russia will surely depict its military as only acting defensively.

In conclusion: The states that have signed the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols — and that includes Russia and Ukraine — have set a high bar for attacks on nuclear power plants. But they are not ruled out entirely, even if the circumstances, in which they are permitted, are very narrowly defined.

But in practice Article 56 of the Additional Protocol (1) is limited. It remains a matter of interpretation as to whether circumstances allow for a concrete case. Moreover, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia has a veto and can prevent any attempts by the body to sanction it for violating international law.

This article was originally written in German.

 Poland says toxic algae may explain Oder River fish die-offs

The Polish government says experts have found toxic algae in water samples from a river on the Polish-German border. Thousands of dead fish have appeared along the Oder River after mass die-offs in recent weeks.

Some 36 metric tons of dead fish have been recorded on the German side of the river alone

Polish Environment Minister Anna Moskwa announced on Thursday that lab tests showed toxic algae in water samples from the Oder River, which straddles Poland and Germany.

The discovery could explain the mass deaths of fish along parts of the river that had left experts baffled about the cause.

What's the latest?

The discovery of toxic algae could explain the fish deaths, but raises another question about what caused the algae to be present in large numbers.

"After further investigations, the Institute of Inland Fisheries in Olsztyn has found rare microorganisms, so-called golden algae, in water samples from the Oder river," Environment Minister Anna Moskwa said.

Moskwa said the blooms could cause the appearance of toxins that kill fish and clams. However, they are not harmful to humans.

German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke on Wednesday said the disaster had killed an estimated 36 tons of fish tallied in Germany alone.

What is golden algae?

Many species fall under the golden algae umbrella, but the term generally refers to just one in relation to fish deaths through toxicity — Prymnesium parvum.

The species produces several toxins, including ichthyotoxin — which specifically affects gill-breathing organisms such as fish, bivalves, crayfish, gilled amphibians, and also some species of plankton.

High levels of salinity, sulfate, and chloride have the greatest influence on golden algae distribution and bloom formation in inland waters.

Climate change could play a role, with higher temperatures leading to more water evaporating from inland waters and higher salinity levels.

The die-offs come as Germany experiences one of its driest summers in recent memory, with river levels falling across much of the country.

A puzzling phenomenon

Experts were left scratching their heads over the death of thousands of fish last week in the Oder River that borders Germany and Poland, near the eastern city of Frankfurt an der Oder.

Just two weeks earlier, Polish anglers had reported removing tons of dead fish from the Oder near the town of Olawa, about 300 kilometers (186 miles) upstream.

At the time of the reports in Poland, water authorities based in the nearby Polish city of Wroclaw detected a toxic substance in two locations on the Oder, thought to be the solvent mesitylene, which is known to have a harmful effect on fish. However, subsequent tests showed no trace of the substance.

Mercury was also identified as a potential culprit for the more recent die-off, but tests for the element and other heavy metals proved negative. Lab tests did show high levels of salinity in the water.

Play Video  2:18 min Chemical pollution suspected in Oder River fish deaths


Local authorities have warned residents, along with their pets and livestock, not to touch the river water.

Warsaw has also previously said a chemical dump could be to blame — and offered a reward for information.

The European Commission on Thursday welcomed the establishment of a joint German-Polish task team and said it was prepared to send its own experts to work with the group.

"The sooner we can identify the cause of this ecological disaster, the sooner we can start to manage and limit the further consequences for nature, for fisheries, for agriculture, and for recreation," a spokesperson said.

Edited by: Kieran Burke

The cost of Orban's pro-Russian policy offers nothing to win but much to lose

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is determined to maintain good relations with Moscow, at times making himself the Kremlin's mouthpiece. The price for Hungary is high, says Zsuzsanna Vegh in a guest column.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (right) has maintained close ties

 with Russian President Vladimir Putin (left)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban gave a speech in the Romanian resort of Baile Tusnad this past July that caused widespread outrage. In his speech, he criticized the mixing of European and non-European races. In his view, this would lead to the displacement of peoples in Western Europe and the formation of "mixed" countries in a "post-Western" world.

This terminology, which was reminiscent of Nazi language, sparked international controversy. Orban's remarks about Russia and the Russian war against Ukraine, on the other hand, caused less of a stir. Nevertheless, they deserve at least as much attention.

In Baile Tusnad, Hungary's prime minister made himself the Kremlin's mouthpiece. He called understandable Russian security concerns about Ukraine's possible NATO membership, yet noting that this does not justify aggression. He also echoed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's threats that Russia would shift the combat front further west.

Disregard for Ukraine's sovereign rights

Zsuzsanna Vegh

Political scientist Zsuzsanna Vegh provided this perspective to DW

Orban not so subtly suggested that it was the West — and in particular the United States — that was responsible for the war because it had ignored Russia's concerns, while calling for immediate peace negotiations. In his view, however, such negotiations would not take place between Russia and Ukraine, rather between Russia and the United States. According to Orban, this is because it is the latter that can address Moscow's concerns.

Even if the Hungarian premier effectively stopped short of excusing Russia's aggression, such calls — and the complete disregard for Ukraine's sovereign right to pursue membership of the security alliance of its preference — reject Ukraine's agency, thereby embracing Russia's line of argument at the expense of those values and international commitments upon which Hungary's very own alliances are based.

Threat to veto sanctions against Russia

Giving preference to Russia's narrative is right in line with the policy the Hungarian government has pursued since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February; namely, to prioritize good relations with Moscow and vocally challenge the EU's sanctions policy.

In June, it went so far as to threaten to veto the adoption of the sixth sanction package just to have Russian Patriarch Kirill removed from the EU's sanction list, even after successfully lobbying for an exemption from the EU's embargo on Russian oil.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto negotiated additional gas deliveries to Hungary

What's more, while the EU called for a reduction in the bloc's dependence on Russian gas, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto met his Russian counterpart in July to negotiate the delivery of an additional 700 million cubic meters of gas to Hungary.

It is important to note, however, that during his February visit, Orban himself had already discussed with Putin the delivery of an additional 1 billion cubic meters on top of the annual 4.5 billion cubic meters that had already been agreed, hoping — but failing — to strike a deal before the Hungarian parliamentary elections.

Orban's social policy at risk

Although Orban expected an agreement before the end of the summer, as of mid-August, that deal seems to be falling short of expectations. The secured additional amount for August only amounts to 52 million cubic meters — although negotiations are allegedly ongoing. Russia is not delivering the previously contracted volume due to restrictions on deliveries that would arrive through Austria.

This puts Orban's social policy of capping energy and utility costs for the Hungarian population at risk. During his visit to Moscow at the beginning of February, he stated that permanently low supply prices would be guaranteed if Russian gas supplies were secured.

Despite their closeness, Orban and Putin stood notably far from each

 other at this toast in Moscow last February

So although the benefits to Hungary of Orban's pro-Russian stance are highly questionable, all of the above indicates it is unlikely that Hungary's stance on Russia will move any closer to that of its increasingly frustrated Western allies.

And quite apart from the usual criticism from EU institutions and the United States about rule of law issues that have already cemented Hungary's image as the EU's problem child, the Hungarian government's stance on Russia is costing it its most important ally: the Polish Law and Justice (PiS) government.

Deteriorating relations in Visegrad Group

According to Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, the paths of the two countries have diverged. Even Orban is now talking about saving cooperation for after the war.

Hungary's other two Visegrad allies, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, were already turning away from the Hungarian government before the war; the latter's pro-Russian stance has only served to exacerbate their differences.

Poland's right-wing populist PiS party, led by Jaroslaw Kaczynski (right), 

would have a natural alliance with Viktor Orban (left)

The breakdown of relations between Poland's PiS and Orban's Fidesz also undermines Orban's ambition to build a new right-wing alliance across the EU. Yet Fidesz is set to continue cultivating these ties across various European countries regardless, carrying forward its hope that these parties will one day rise to power together.

Cooperation among right-wing forces

In fact, Orban's opening speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas on August 4, where he expressed support for former President Donald Trump and hope that he would return to power in 2024, demonstrates that he is committed to the long-term international cooperation of right-wing forces.

Speaking at CPAC, Orban expressed support for Donald Trump and his hope

 that Trump would return to power in 2024

Putting all his eggs into one basket, so to speak, suggests that Orban is abandoning any attempts to improve ties with the current US administration. This attitude, which also characterizes his approach to the European mainstream, foreshadows further entrenchment of Hungary's conflict with its Western allies and a frosty time ahead for diplomatic relations, at a moment when unity is more important than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Undermining Hungary's position

Although leaving the EU and in particular NATO is not in the cards for Hungary (because it is not in the government's interest), Orban's lamentations about the fall of the West and his recurrent gestures to its challengers — primarily Russia, but also China — will remain part of Hungary's toolkit. This is something the country's Western partners need to be prepared for.

While Orban seeks to enlarge Hungary's room to maneuver, in reality he is doing the exact opposite: Having undermined the country's position as a credible partner in the West, his politics have relegated Hungary to the role of a useful pawn for external challengers who seek to weaken its alliances.


Zsuzsanna Vegh is a scientific associate at the Faculty of Social and Cultural Sciences at the European University Viadrina, and a nonresident visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions where she works.

Edited by: Aingeal Flanagan and Keno Verseck

Amazing Planet: Are hydra really immortal?


We can only dream of being forever young. But for hydra, tiny freshwater creatures, this is a reality. They don't age and can technically live forever — unless they get starved or killed.

Hydra are tiny freshwater polyps

It is likely that there is one near you right now if you live close to freshwater. These small invertebrates can be found in all kinds of ponds, lakes, streams and rivers, usually on the underside of rocks or leaves. And there, right under your nose, they get older without aging biologically. 

The animal in question is called hydra, like the Greek mythological water monster that has multiple heads, one of them immortal. Legend has it that the monster grows several new heads if one is cut off.  

Real-life hydra are a far cry from this serpentine creature. They are only about an inch long (25mm) and have tentacles at the end of their tubelike body to catch prey like brine shrimp or insect larvae.  

But like the Greek monster, they do have regenerative capabilities. You can cut off an actual hydra's head and it will grow a new one. Or you can cut it into several pieces — then you have several hydra. These freshwater polyps can also reproduce asexually, meaning they can essentially produce duplicates of themselves.

Hydra can regenerate amputated parts of their bodies

Researchers recently looked into how hydra regrow their heads. They found hydra use different genes when they regenerate a new head because of an injury than when they grow one during budding, a part of asexual reproduction. The gene activity also differs in the two processes: It is dynamic during regeneration, but increases slowly when budding. 

Of course it is a massive win that they can regrow any part of their body that has been amputated. That is because they constantly produce new stem cells, which produce fresh cells every three to four weeks. This also means that, under the right circumstances, hydra don't grow weaker, get any worse at catching shrimp or reproducing. They simply don't age the way we do.  

Scientists studied this in 2015 by creating ideal environments for the little creatures, with regular feeding and water changing. They observed the hydra over eight years and found that the death rate remained constant and extremely low throughout. The fertility rate also didn't change. 

Hydra can be immortal if they live under ideal circumstances

That doesn't mean hydra can't die. If they run out of food, a fish kills them or their water is polluted, they too will perish. In fact they are so sensitive to environmental pollutants like metals, pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds that they have been used tomeasure the impact of these substances, because they can alter hydra's growth, reproduction and behavior, among other things. 

 But, in the ideal environment, they can be forever young.  

Edited by: Sarah Steffen