Sunday, December 08, 2024

 ‘An Asset No One Can Freeze’ – Russia Renews Its Fascination With Gold


Faced with few options to finance its war on Ukraine, the Kremlin has boosted its gold holdings to record levels, sold on “trade routes” for hard currency. Spot prices have soared.


by John Moretti | December 8, 2024,


The casual, weekend investor may be given pause by this paradox: While inflation in the West is still uncomfortably high, and the US economy is roaring, the spot price of gold continues its historic climb. Normally, as the world’s major economies would heat up, investors would cool on precious metals, as the latter doesn’t yield any interest or dividends, even though it can be relied upon to retain at least some significant value.

Gold, then, traditionally has been seen as a safe harbor in bearish bond and/or equity markets.Why, then, has the price of gold continued an historic rise over the past two years, reaching an all-time high of $2,790.07 per ounce in October, as the world’s largest economy, for one, has boomed at the same time? On March, 20, 2020, $1,488 would buy you an ounce of gold.

At one point on Tuesday, the price sat at $2,675.As those dates might suggest, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a good place to start digging and panning for answers.For one thing, investors usually flock to gold when geopolitical tensions are high, as certainly was the case when Russian President Vladimir Putin raised the specter of nuclear strikes last month.

“Clearly that has sparked safe-haven interest,” Peter Grant, vice president and senior metals strategist at Zaner Metals, told Reuters in late November.And then, there is the rush on gold from the Kremlin itself.

‘A wake-up call for central banks worldwide’


Last month, the Russian Ministry of Finance announced that it would increase its daily currency and gold purchases by 35.5 percent. Moscow’s gold reserves had already surpassed the $200 billion mark in October for the first time, reaching a record $207.7 billion.

“Since 2022, gold prices have surged 40 percent even as US interest rates were climbing,” Lina Thomas, commodities strategist with Goldman Sachs Research, pointed out on the New York-based investment bank’s blog.

“That is very strange. Typically, higher interest rates make gold less attractive – because gold doesn’t pay any interest, unlike bonds.”After the US and other Western countries started freezing Russia’s central bank assets held in those countries’ financial institutions, that logic was upended.

“That was a wake-up call for central banks worldwide,” Thomas continued. “They began to diversify their reserves away from the dollar and into an asset no one can freeze – and that is gold.” Thomas forecasts that that gold will rise to $3,000 per troy ounce by the end of next year.

So, where does Russia get its gold?

In 2022, Russia was the second-largest producer of gold in the world, tied with Australia at 320 tons mined annually, or 10.3 percent of the world’s production. They ranked just behind China with 330 tons, or 10.6 percent of global share. (The US came in fourth place, behind Canada, with 5.5 percent, while South Africa, the world leader as recently as 2006, had slipped to seventh place that year, with 3.3 percent.)

The largest gold-mining companies in Russia, according to Statista figures from 2021, are: Polyus, one of the world’s largest with about 85 metric tons produced that year, followed by Polymetal International (35 metric tons) and then Kinross Gold, Petropavlovsk, Nord Gold, Uzuralzloto, and others. To get an idea of orders of magnitude, Polyus reported an operating profit of $1.58 billion in the first half of this year.

Those companies mostly sell their gold to Russian commercial banks, such as VTB Bank, MDM, Sberbank, and Gazprombank, the financial arm of the majority state-owned energy company, Gazprom.

They, in turn, sell the gold to the Russian central bank, the Bank of Russia, which owns and manages all of the country’s reserves. It stores two-thirds of its gold in Moscow, in a vault on Ulitsa Pravdy, and the rest in a building in St Petersburg.

A new “gold trade route”

One of the largest problems with the sanctions-laden Russian economy is that the ruble has been fizzling in value, and it has no legitimate access to dollars or euros.

According to US-based think thank, RAND, Russia seems to be “trading gold for hard currency, weapons, and foreign goods, creating a new gold trade route between Russia, Africa, the Middle East, and China,” its analysts wrote in September.

“By the time of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it had been acquiring gold at a faster rate than any other country for a decade,” noted John Kennedy, a research leader in the field for RAND.

An executive order from the US president’s office (E.O. 14024) has been in effect since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion, declaring that “persons determined to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, deceptive or structured transactions or dealings to circumvent US sanctions, including through the use of assets such as gold or other precious metals” are subject to penalty.

Nonetheless, “Moscow is using gold to prop up its wartime economy and bolster access to crucial goods, while holding considerable influence over the production of gold in Central Asia and Africa,” Kennedy wrote.




John Moretti is a freelance journalist and author dividing his time between Europe and the United States. He has also spent more than a decade working with companies that protect travelers from health and security emergencies abroad. His academic background is in Eastern European Studies, international public policy and counterterrorism.

In Stalin’s Time, Russians Denounced Others to Get Apartments; Now, in Putin’s, They Do So to Get Medical Care They Want


    Staunton, Dec. 8, 2024 – The ways in which Stalinism is returning to Russia  are truly insidious. Among the worst is this: In Stalin’s time, Russians denounced others to get their apartments ns joba; now, in Putin’s, they claim doctors have said something against the war in Ukraine if they want them fired and replaced with someone who’ll give them the care they want.
    This type of behavior has been documented by Novaya Gazeta, which observes that “the scariest part” of such actions is that “the state encourages such behavior,” leading patients to record medical appointments or make up charges that have no basis in reality if they don’t like the medical care they are receiving (novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/12/04/ia-prosto-molchu).
    What is especially disturbing is that this tactic has now led doctors to avoid giving their opinions even among themselves, a pattern that suggests denunciations used to achieve personal goals not just in medicine but in other spheres as well have again become commonplace in Russia today.  

‘Putin doesn’t want a Truce in Ukraine But Might Agree to One for Three Reasons,’ Shelin Says

    Staunton, Dec. 8, 2024  – Putin has enough resources to continue his war in Ukraine for a long time and certainly doesn’t want a truce with Kyiv, Sergey Shelin says; “but he might agree to one” because the war is costing more than he expected, his imperialism is increasingly at odds with the nationalism of the Russian people, and the population itself is tired of war.
    But any agreement the Kremlin leader might make about Ukraine would be no more than a breathing space, allowing him time to gather his forces, and likely guaranteeing that he would restart the conflict when he felt he was in a better position to win it as quickly as he expected in 2022 (moscowtimes.ru/2024/12/06/putin-peremiriya-ne-hochet-no-poiti-na-nego-mozhet-tri-prichini-a149786).
    The costs, human and financial, of the war in Ukraine have been far greater than Putin expected or than the Russian people are comfortable with. Moreover, his imperialist approach is increasingly at odds with the nationalism of the Russian people who want to see investments in themselves and with the attitudes of the population that is increasingly tired of the conflict.
    Consequently, Putin, who doesn’t want to have to work hard to continue his current policy, is “now quite capable of searching for a middle ground between war and peace and could, as a last resort, even sign some kind of agreement to restore his strength and sometime, if everything works out, start again doing” what it might appear he has promised not do.
    In short, Putin might agree to a truce, Shelin concludes; but there is no possibility that he will agree to anything like a peace.  



Medical professionals in Georgia demand a halt to the use of chemical agents on protesters

 08.12.2024
Kuwait proposes 15% corporate tax in sweeping fiscal reforms starting 2025

Kuwait’s corporate tax plan to modernise fiscal framework, align with global standard
s

Published: December 08, 2024 
The plan, detailed in a draft of the Business Profits Tax Law, is expected to target both local and multinational businesses while exempting smaller enterprises with annual turnovers under 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinars.
Image Credit: WAM


Dubai: Kuwait is poised to introduce a Corporate Income Tax as part of sweeping fiscal reforms, with the Ministry of Finance proposing a 15 percent tax on corporate profits starting in 2025.

The plan, detailed in a draft of the Business Profits Tax Law, is expected to target both local and multinational businesses while exempting smaller enterprises with annual turnovers under 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinars.

The draft law outlines that the tax will apply to profits earned after January 1, 2025, with broader implementation extending to additional businesses starting in 2027.

Initial advance tax payments would begin in 2026. Companies wholly owned by the state would be exempt, while certain income from divided zones, including the submerged divided zone, would face a higher tax rate of 30 percent, reduced for taxpayers who have already paid 50 percent of taxes to Saudi Arabia.

A supplementary tax is proposed for multinational corporations operating with effective tax rates below the minimum 15 percent, ensuring compliance with international tax standards. Additionally, a 5 percent withholding tax would apply to specific payments made to non-residents, such as dividends, royalties, rent, technical services, and insurance premiums, unless tied to permanent establishments in Kuwait.

To comply, companies must register with the Tax Administration within 30 days of beginning operations. Tax returns, accompanied by audited financial statements, would need to be filed within six months of the end of the tax year. The draft law also requires quarterly advance tax payments based on estimated earnings, with any overpayments eligible for refunds upon filing the final return.

The proposed tax system permits deductions for prior-period losses, salaries, depreciation, and contributions to the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences, subject to specific limits.

Businesses must retain financial records for 10 years to meet reporting obligations. Taxpayers may challenge assessments through an objection and appeal process, with disputes escalated to a Tax Grievances Committee or competent courts as necessary.


Taxpayers failing to meet filing or payment deadlines face a penalty of 1 percent for every 30 days of delay. This penalty applies to missed tax declarations, withheld taxes, or delayed advance payments. In cases where tax debts are at risk, the Tax Administration may seek court orders to seize assets, though taxpayers can avoid such measures by providing guarantees.

The reforms aim to modernize Kuwait’s fiscal framework, ensuring alignment with international tax standards while fostering transparency. With mechanisms targeting large corporations, small enterprises, and foreign entities, the proposed law seeks to balance revenue generation with fair treatment of businesses across the economic spectrum.

Monitoring ocean chlorophyll could reduce impact of warming seas

By David Stoc

NEW SCIENTIST

DECEMBER 8, 2024


The oceans are vast, covering much of Earth’s surface. They play huge roles in our economy, are a massive food source, provide habitat for many species and heavily influence the climate.

Studying these waters to better understand such complex functions is a huge challenge for scientists. To help in this task, Heather Bouman, a biogeochemist at the University of Oxford, is collecting and analysing information gathered by satellites on chlorophyll, the green pigment in phytoplankton, and comparing it with observational data and samples from at-sea expeditions. Her work is enabling us to better understand the stability of the marine food web and the rate of carbon sequestration in our oceans, highlighting their fundamental role in the global carbon cycle and helping predict the future in a warming world.

 

Thousands of tonnes of banned pesticides exported from UK in 2023

08 Dec 2024 NATION CYMRU
Bee collecting pollen in the city of Bristol – Photo Ben Birchall/PA Wire

The UK exported thousands of tonnes of pesticides last year that were banned domestically due to their harmful impacts, an investigation has found.

Greenpeace’s investigation unit Unearthed and Swiss campaign group Public Eye analysed documents that companies submitted to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) when exporting banned chemicals.

Toxic

The documents – obtained under freedom of information laws – showed that the UK shipped 8,500 tonnes of toxic pesticides overseas in 2023, including enough of a banned bee-killing insecticide to spray an area bigger than England.

Also among the exports were thousands of tonnes of diquat – a weedkiller banned in the UK in 2018 because of the high risk it poses to people living near fields.

The investigation found that almost all (98%) of the harmful pesticides were shipped by the UK subsidiary of agrochemical giant, Syngenta, which continues to make these products at its manufacturing plant in Huddersfield.

Under UK laws, a pesticide banned domestically can still be produced and exported, meaning companies like Syngenta are free to continue manufacturing the chemicals in the UK to be sold overseas.

Campaigners say the UK has not taken any steps to restrict cross-border trade of these products, in contrast to France and Belgium which have introduced export bans, and the European Commission which has committed to ending the practice of manufacturing banned chemicals for export.

Protest

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, called on the Government to follow European countries to stop the production and export of all pesticides banned for use on Britain’s farms and fields.

“Talk about double standards,” he said.

“The UK has, quite rightly, banned the use of these toxic pesticides due to the dangers they pose to both human health and wildlife.

“Why then do we think it’s OK to give pesticides giants, like Syngenta, carte blanche to dump this poison on countries with weaker regulations, knowing full well the harm it’s causing?

“Farmers and nature are being exploited for corporate benefits.”

Diquat was the UK’s most exported banned pesticide last year, according to the analysis, which found that Syngenta’s UK shipments of the pesticide made up 60% (5,123 tonnes) of the total exports in 2023.

More than half of this went to Brazil, where farmers are using the pesticide to replace a similar weed killer paraquat, which has been linked to poisoning deaths around the world and was recently banned in the country.

UK paraquat exports have dropped to a quarter of their previous levels following a wave of national bans and Syngenta pulling out of the paraquat market in some countries, the campaigners said.

They found that recent sales of diquat as a replacement have rocketed in Brazil, increasing from around 1,400 to 24,000 tonnes – more than 1,600% – between 2019 and 2022.

The Brazilian state of Parana, which is the country’s biggest diquat user, has seen a sharp rise in poisonings from the pesticide, according to their findings.


Bees

The investigation also revealed that Syngenta is exporting pesticides from the UK containing hundreds of tonnes of the neonicotinoid insecticide, thiamethoxam.

Neonicotinoids destroy bees’ nervous systems and are banned in Europe and the UK.

However the former Conservative government has granted emergency authorisation for its use every year in the UK since 2021.

Syngenta was found to have exported nearly 400 tonnes of thiamethoxam from the UK to countries including Cote d’Ivoire, Ukraine and Morocco last year.

A Syngenta spokesperson said the company does not manufacture the active ingredients thiamethoxam or chlorothalonil in the UK and “firmly disagrees with Unearthed’s characterisation” of the company.

He went on: “Agricultural needs differ globally, and the use of agrochemical products is based on assessment by national governments of the risks and the benefits for use in their own country. On this basis, in some instances, Syngenta’s UK manufacturing facilities provide products no longer available or needed in a UK domestic context but deemed required for agronomic and agricultural reasons by farmers and regulators in the importing country.

“In exporting products from the UK, Syngenta respects the sovereignty and direction of the importing country, meets all the international regulatory requirements including Prior Informed Consent and provides stewardship and detailed information in country to promote the safe application by end users.”

“Wherever we operate, we do this in full compliance with local laws and regulations,” they added.

Promises

The new Labour Government is reportedly thinking of allowing the use of a neonicotinoid on sugar beet crops in the UK despite promising to ban it when campaigning for the general election.

However, ministers are facing growing calls from green groups to stop emergency authorisations in the UK and enforce a total ban on bee-killing pesticides.

More than 1.6 million people have so far signed a Greenpeace petition backing this call.

A UK Government spokesperson said: “This Government is committed to protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals.

“The UK goes beyond the international standard for exports of paraquat and diquat, requiring the explicit consent of the importing country before export can take place.

“This enables the importing country to make informed decisions about the import of those chemicals and how to handle them safely.

“Requirements for the export of hazardous chemicals are agreed at international level under the Rotterdam Convention and we are working closely with the international community to develop best practice and improve the management of these chemicals.”

Trump’s Already Rewarding Fossil Fuel CEOs. That’s Not Good for Consumers or the Planet.

If you think fossil fuel profits lead to better prices, then look again at the Biden administration.


December 8, 2024
Source: Other Words



During his campaign, Donald Trump publicly promised to reward oil and gas executives handsomely in exchange for funding his campaign.

Within weeks of winning the election, he’s making good on his promise by tapping oil and gas executive Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy. Wright has zero experience in running a federal agency. And as the Associated Press reports, he’s “been one of the industry’s loudest voices against efforts to fight climate change.”

To lead the Environmental Protection Agency, Trump has picked another crusader against the climate: former New York Rep. Lee Zeldin, who voted in lockstep with fossil fuel interests during his time in Congress.

Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans believe climate change is real, human-caused, and needs to be urgently addressed. Trump’s billionaire oil buddies — who will shape national energy policy for the next four years — offer precisely the opposite.

Trump has promised to make fuel and energy more affordable for consumers by steering massive profits to energy producers — but those profits will come at our expense. He’s pledged to end federal subsidies for electric vehicles, even though many Americans want zero-emission vehicles but can’t afford them yet. And he’s vowed to bring gas prices under $2 a gallon — a wild claim that economists don’t buy.

Oil profits and production are already sky-high under President Biden and haven’t led to lower gas prices.

Indeed, Biden has been more of a friend to oil and gas than to climate justice groups. In spite of the White House’s boasts about historic climate policies, Biden’s actions have been relatively toothless. Among them are setting goals posts to reduce emissions years from now — anywhere between 2030 and 2050 — well after he leaves office.

He’s touted his signature legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, as a historic victory for the climate. The law did make significant climate investments, but the majority of it tinkered around the edges of what’s truly needed. And it ended up giving away billions to the fossil fuel industry for unproven technologies such as “carbon capture.”

Indeed, if Trump wants to “drill baby, drill,” he could thank Biden for paving the way.

Biden has overseen the transformation of the U.S. into one of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers, both during his presidency and during the Obama years, when he was vice president. According to the Energy Department, the U.S. has “produced more crude oil than any nation at any time… for the past six years in a row.”

So the last thing the fossil fuel industry needs is more favors.

Consumers will pay the price if Trump makes EVs and renewable energy more expensive, lets oil companies dismantle regulations, and accelerates the climate crisis. But he’s relying on ordinary Americans not noticing he’s throwing them and their planet under the bus because of the chaos he’ll bring with mass deportations, anti-LGBT bigotry, and other madness.

With the time he has left, Biden could still declare climate change a national emergency — a step many environmental groups are begging him to take, but which he’s resisted throughout his presidency. They’re also calling on him to stop the expansion of export infrastructure for liquefied natural gas.

If Biden wants to make any sort of claim to be a climate champion, he’ll take those steps. But ultimately, it will be up to the rest of us to watch what Trump is doing and fight for better climate policies in our own states and communities.
Nicaragua's ‘New’ Constitution Opens the Door to Natural Resource Exploitation

Recent constitutional reforms in Nicaragua expand resource exploitation concessions, obscure decision-making, and drop environmental commitments.


The Ortega dictatorship facilitates deforestation in Nicaragua. Photo from archives

Redacción Confidencial
8 de diciembre 2024

The regime in Nicaragua has “opened the doors to exploitation” of the country’s natural resources. The recent lightning-fast reforms to the Constitution will eliminate the State’s obligation to submit contracts for environmental exploitation to “transparent and public processes,” as established in the current Constitution.

Article 102 of the Constitution that has been in force since 1987 establishes that the Government can concede “contracts for the rational exploitation of natural resources” when the national interest requires, but subject to public and transparent proceedings. However, in the proposed total reform of this Constitution, the stipulations that such contracts be granted in situations of “national interest” and “after public process,” will no longer appear.

“The change in Article 102 opens the doors to the exploitation of natural resources without any transparent public process or need to assure that they’re tied to the national interest,” stated environmentalist Amaru Ruiz.

He warned: “This leaves the country’s public assets at the mercy of private interests, with no possibility of public scrutiny. This can deepen the environmental degradation the socio-environmental conflicts.”

Other reforms to the same Article 102 eliminate the provision that, if considering a concession to foreign companies “for the construction and rational exploitation of an inter-oceanic canal,” priority should be given to “the conformation of consortiums with national companies to promote employment.” This last change is occurring parallel to Ortega’s attempts to resurrect the inter-oceanic canal project, now along a new route. He offered such an opportunity to a group of Chinese magnates in November 2024.

In the past few years, the regime has also conceded huge mining concessions which “threaten” the indigenous communities in the Caribbean Coast regions. The concessions granted to Chinese companies have now been extended to new territories such as Esteli, where in August 2024, the Nicaraguan government awarded the “Nicaragua Xinxin Linze Mining Group S.A”. a tract of land extending over some 8,967 acres in the municipality of San Juan de Limay.

The latest mining concession, also to the Chinese XinXin Linze Mining Group, was announced on November 27, involving 22,492 acres in the Department of Nueva Segovia.

The modifications to Article 102 of the Constitution are part of a series of transformations to Nicaragua’s former Magna Carta that the regime of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo have ordered. The changes, supposedly to “modernize” the document, actually affect up to 93% of the articles, most of them aimed at concentrating still further power and repression.

This new draft, popularly called the Chamuca Constitution, in reference to a nickname given the all-powerful first lady and “copresident” Rosario Murillo, was already approved with lightning speed and minimal discussion in a first legislative session of Nicaragua’s docile National Assembly. In January 2025, it will almost certainly be approved in a second mandatory session, after which it will enter into effect.

Eliminates commitments to environmental protection

Another of the articles that have been “condensed” in the new version is Article #60. The new version leaves out the duty to “protect and restore the integrity of the ecosystems, with special concern for biological diversity and all the natural processes that sustain life.”

Similarly, it eliminates the parameter: “patterns of production and consumption should be adopted that guarantee the vitality and integrity of mother earth, social equity for humanity, responsible and fair consumerism, and community well-being.”

These changes “dismantle the government’s commitments to environmental protection and sustainability,” believes Ruiz, former president of the now-shuttered and confiscated environmental NGO Fundacion del Rio.”

The environmentalist added: “by eliminating the recognition of Mother Earth as a self-regulating system, and the obligation to protect ecosystems and biodiversity, they betray the Constitutional mandate to guarantee sustainable development.”

The Ortega regime, he stressed, has allowed “an environmental disaster, with grave consequences for global climate.

An investigation conducted by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project and published in a report titled “Deforestation, Nicaragua’s other forgotten crisis,” revealed that deforestation spiked beginning in 2014, when Ortega assumed direct control of the National Forestry Institute (Inafor). The average loss of forestland in Nicaragua went from 1.34% between 2010 and 2015, to 2.56% from 2015-2020.

This environmental disaster has been fed by the corruption in Inafor, made possible by the presidential family, demonstrated in a leak of internal documents analyzed by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

The regime has also eliminated all independent environmental NGOs in Nicaragua. “Those national and international organizations that are still operating have been coopted by the regime, such as Flora y Fauna Internacional,” Ruiz declared.

This article was published in Spanish in Confidencial and translated by Havana Times.
This Deadly 1815 Volcanic Eruption Changed Life As We Know It


Scott Travers
Contributor
I write about the world of biology

FORBES
Dec 8, 2024



The 1815 eruption at Mount Tambora set off tsunamis, decided the fate of historic battles and erased ... [+]getty

Volcanoes are among the most awe-inspiring forces of nature, capable of reshaping landscapes and ecosystems. While their immediate eruptions capture the imagination with dramatic displays of lava and ash, their true impact often lingers in the years that follow.

No eruption in recorded history has had the same transformative impact as the infamous eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia—a cataclysm of such magnitude that it reshaped the mountain drastically, reducing its height by over 4,000 feet. The blast left a caldera, or a huge crater, spanning 3.7 miles across and about 2000 feet deep.


Geological material was ejected an estimated 10 cubic miles into the atmosphere, unleashing a cascade of events that lowered global temperatures, disrupted weather patterns and caused what is now remembered as the “Year Without a Summer.”

This eruption didn’t just devastate the local region—it left an indelible mark on the entire planet.

Crops failed across continents, fueling famines and food riots. The world saw its first cholera pandemic unfold and even the Battle of Waterloo couldn’t escape Mount Tambora’s volcanic influence. This is the story of how one volcanic eruption covered the planet and reshaped our world.

The Eruption Of Mount Tambora Topped A Decade Of Destruction

The disaster at Mount Tambora did not emerge in isolation. The earth had been rumbling for years, setting the stage for one of the most devastating natural events in human history.

Between 1808 and 1814, a series of volcanic eruptions sent ash and gases into the atmosphere. A mysterious eruption in the southwestern Pacific Ocean in 1808 was followed by others: La Soufrière in Saint Vincent in 1812, Awu in the Sangihe Islands the same year, Suwanosejima in the Ryukyu Islands in 1813 and Mayon in the Philippines in 1814.


Forbes Daily: Join over 1 million Forbes Daily subscribers and get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day’s news in your inbox every weekday.
Get the latest news on special offers, product updates and content suggestions from Forbes and its affiliates.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service, and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Each eruption contributed to a gradual buildup of atmospheric dust, dimming sunlight and cooling the planet.

By 1815, Mount Tambora’s magma chamber was under immense pressure. On April 5, the mountain began its final rumble, sending a massive plume of ash into the sky. The eruption climaxed on April 10, with an explosion so loud it was heard over 1,600 miles away.

Ash In The Clouds, Nip In The Air And Red In The Sky

The immediate impact of Tambora’s eruption was devastating. The sheer magnitude of the eruption sent volcanic material high into the stratosphere, creating an ash cloud that blanketed the skies and dispersed across the globe.

The ashfall extended far beyond Indonesia. Reports from British ships in the Indian Ocean described encountering vast floating rafts of pumice, some stretching up to five kilometers wide. In Makassar, over 370 miles away, the weight of volcanic debris on roofs caused buildings to collapse.

The ash clouds were so dense they plunged the surrounding areas into near-total darkness for up to two days. By the time the eruption subsided in mid-July, Tambora had expelled more material than any volcanic event in recorded history, with ash reaching as far as the South China Sea and the Bay of Bengal, thousands of kilometers away.

High-altitude dispersal of ash and sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere led to optical phenomena around the globe. In London, fiery red sunsets painted the skies—the vibrant, surreal colors caused by the fine ash particles scattering sunlight, a hauntingly picturesque reminder of the destruction wrought by Tambora.



The mix of ash and sulfur dioxide from Mount Tambora’s eruption resulted in boldly-colored sunsets ... [+]getty

This ash cloud, however, was no mere visual oddity. It created a global blanket of aerosols that reflected sunlight away from the Earth’s surface, triggering a cascade of climatic disruptions.

The temperature began to drop. By the end of 1815, global temperatures had declined by as much as 1.2°C, according to a 1992 study published in Natural Hazards. The effects were stark: crops failed, rivers froze in midsummer and the growing season shortened dramatically.
Then Came The ‘Year Without A Summer’ (Or A Win For Napoleon)

In the year following Mount Tambora’s eruption, the world experienced one of the most dramatic and widespread climate anomalies in recorded history.

The blanket of sulfate aerosols that dropped global temperatures was about to unleash an ecologically unbelievable year around the world. While a 1.2°C change in temperature might seem minor, it was enough to disrupt weather systems across the planet, leading to 1816 being remembered as the “Year Without a Summer.”

In Europe, unseasonably cold temperatures, heavy rains and frost devastated crops. Snow fell in July in parts of Hungary and Italy, and red-tinged snow, a result of volcanic ash, was reported in parts of Eastern Europe. Farmers across the continent saw their harvests fail, sparking food shortages and riots in protest.

In Asia, the effects were similarly devastating. The Indian monsoon failed, followed by late, torrential rains that triggered widespread flooding in the Ganges basin. This confluence of climatic disruptions created the ideal breeding ground for disease.

In 1817, the first global cholera pandemic emerged in the Bengal region, spreading rapidly through trade routes to Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and eventually Europe.

While these widespread disasters unfolded, Tambora's far-reaching impact even made its mark on geopolitics. At the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, heavy rains—likely influenced by the volcanic disruptions—turned the battlefield into a muddy quagmire, delaying Napoleon's attacks and aiding the Allied forces' eventual victory.

Today, Mount Tambora stands as a somber reminder of nature’s immense power. The eruption’s impact on climate and human history highlights the delicate balance of our interconnected world. While the immediate devastation was localized, the long-term consequences were global, altering weather patterns, economies and even the course of history.

Efforts to study past eruptions like Tambora provide critical insights into the potential effects of future volcanic events. Today, as we face challenges like climate change and environmental degradation, the story of Tambora underscores the importance of understanding and respecting the forces that shape our planet.



Scott TraversFollow
I am an American evolutionary biologist, based at Rutgers University, where I specialize in biodiversity, evolution, and genomics. 

GREENWASHING

Backed by J.P. Morgan’s “green” investment funds, Glencore’s mining in South Africa is depriving people of drinking water

Published on 15 November 2024

 
Alex Falcó Chang | Cartoon Movement



“In our cynical society, it is often the case that mining companies build up their profits while not reporting to their shareholders the environmental and social costs that are absorbed by the surrounding poor and disempowered communities.” In Johannesburg, Mariette Lifferink was brimming over with this inflamed thought as she composed a letter to the US-based bank J.P. Morgan to express her outrage at the company’s misdeeds.

Lifferink, who is president of the South African NGO Federation for a sustainable environment, addressed her letter to Chuka Umunna, global head of sustainable solutions at the world's largest asset manager. She was warning the former British Labour MP-cum-ethical banker that J.P. Morgan's supposedly green investment funds were actually sponsoring water pollution in her home province, instead of ensuring clean water and respect for human rights. In Mpumalanga, which borders Mozambique and Eswatini in the east of South Africa, people have been thirsty and unwell for decades because of dirty coal mining.
More : ‘Coal kills us as you earn your greenwashed profits’ – How environmentally responsible investors are unwittingly profiting from German mega coal industry

Lifferink maintained a civilised tone in her letter: “It is trusted that this disclosure of alleged non-compliance with environmental legislation, pollution, ecological degradation and environmental risk, will incline you to conduct a due diligence process to determine whether Glencore’s South African operations are compliant with JP Morgan’s criteria for funding”.
Will J.P. Morgan’s ‘just transition’ prophet care for water pariahs ?

The son of a Nigerian former businessman and Irish-English mother, London-born Chuka Umunna was promoted to his current role in July 2024, having joined the US bank in 2021. At the time, he was the lead adviser on the firm's environmental, social and governance (ESG) efforts in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Umunna’s role is to help the Wall Street titan's clients around the world improve their sustainability performance.


Interesting article?

It was made possible by Voxeurop’s community. High-quality reporting and translation comes at a cost. To continue producing independent journalism, we need your support.

Subscribe or Donate

Self-styled eco-conscious Umunna may have missed or overlooked the Johannesburg-based activist's complaint. The image he likes to convey in his public speeches on sustainable business does not seem to apply to South Africa. Take, for example, this quote from one of his early interviews since he took office at J.P. Morgan: "Young people today don't just want to grow the family fortune, they want to use their money to save the world".

In her message, Lifferink referred to J.P. Morgan's green-labelled share and bond holdings in Glencore, the world's largest multinational mining company, which is based in Switzerland and listed on both the London and Johannesburg stock exchanges. She cited reports, obtained confidentially from the South African government, proving that Glencore has relentlessly released excess toxic pollutants into the water system on which locals, mostly from lower-class black communities, depend for drinking, fishing, farming and cattling. She argued that Glencore's wrongdoing was not consistent with the sound water management promoted by J.P. Morgan's green funds.

And yet both the pension fund set up by J.P. Morgan for its UK staff (which provides a lavish allowance for current and future retired managers, including Umunna himself) and those set up by other employers in the country are profiting from the same funds that are greenwashing water pollution in South Africa, despite all the talk of responsible investment.

Lifferink never heard back from Umunna. This is unsurprising, since J.P. Morgan has an established trusted relationship with Glencorethe US bank has also arranged all of its bond issuances (which are essentially loans – a key way that Glencore makes money) and has often advised investors to buy Glencore stocks.
J.P. Morgan champions (un)sustainable investing in Glencore

EU legislation on green finance (the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, known as SFDR), which came into force in 2021, requires asset managers to disclose both the environmental and social benefits and negative impacts of the activities in which they invest. But the hope that greater transparency would encourage investors to shift capital to more sustainable investments has often been frustrated by financial institutions' misleading tactics. Exploiting loopholes in the regulatory framework, asset managers have massively channelled investor money into investment products marketed across Europe to greenwash destructive activities.

With 16.7 million tonnes of direct carbon emissions in 2023, Glencore is one of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters. It attracts investment through funds promoted as ESG products (environmental, social and governance improvements), as our research has shown. The value of the Swiss multinational's shares and dividends skyrocketed throughout 2022 as Europe was suddenly forced to replace Russian gas with other energy sources in the wake of Vladimir Putin's full scale invasion of Ukraine. The EU market exponentially increased its coal imports from South Africa. Dozens of asset managers seized the opportunity to boost the returns of their green investments through buying and selling the Swiss mining giant’s shares and bonds. In doing so, they hid the harmful effects of coal behind bespoke due diligence methodologies, ensuring that their portfolios were formally compliant with lax EU requirements.

Since the European law on green finance, or SFDR, came into force in the second quarter of 2024, asset managers have invested an average per trimester of $790 million in Glencore through their green funds. These include $798.5 million invested through two mislabelled products according to the new fund naming guidelines adopted in May 2024 by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Prior to 2022, most of the 10 asset managers who profited most from their green fund investments in Glencore made losses. They've made almost $570 million since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war when Glencore’s shares value and dividends peaked (as explained above), in February of the same year, with only a few making modest returns of around $13 million before that.

J.P. Morgan ranks second in the global "green-painted" rush on Glencore's stock market. Its UK subsidiary has marketed investments worth an annual average of $54.8 million and has continued to buy shares in the Swiss company relentlessly. Its exposure, which is greater than that of any other asset manager, increased by $14.15 million between the first and second quarters of 2024. The latest available data from the second quarter show that J.P. Morgan holds a total of $43.34 million worth of shares.

Over 20% of this value is held in the two funds with the ESG label, which ESMA guidelines prohibit for investments in fossil fuels such as coal (1).

More than 20% of Glencore's "green" investments ($57.3 million) held by the 10 most exposed funds (marketed by various asset managers) are currently in the hands of J.P. Morgan, whose questionable sustainable bet on Glencore goes beyond the stock market. From the beginning of the all-out Russian invasion of Ukraine (in the first quarter of 2022) until the second quarter of 2024, JP Morgan may have made up to $46 million by adding $7.7 million Glencore shares to its investments. The US bank has also lent Glencore millions through green funds which underwrote corporate bonds issued by the Swiss company between 2021 and 2024. Those funds directly subsidised Glencore’s coal operations in South Africa.

All of J.P. Morgan's green funds replicate similar EU-required sustainability disclosure documents (based on a common template), albeit under different names and investing in different sectors and regions. This allows the offering to be diversified and tailored to investors' needs, while following the same ESG strategy.
Glencore water pollution makes a mockery of public law and health

Nine-thousand kilometres from Umunna's desk, in the southern hemisphere, J.P. Morgan's investments look a lot less green. Water overuse and pollution from coal mining is one of the main causes of the chronic water crisis affecting more than 4.2 million people living around the Olifants River catchment in Mpumalanga. This scourge has until recently been in the news (2) in eMalahleni (100km east of Johannesburg), the third largest municipality in the province with a population of 450,000. The supply system does not meet minimum drinking water quality standards due to the widespread infiltration of chemicals, making residents ill, mostly with diarrhoea.

Most of the pollution comes from the dozens of South African active coal mines (in addition to those that have been closed but not decontaminated), which account for around 90% of the country's coal production. Over the years they have also devastated the fertile wetlands and aquatic life on which people's livelihoods depend, a coal-driven disaster several scientific studies have proven (3).

The local administration states that it has been “unable to exploit groundwater resources due to underground coal mining”, resulting in the “emission and dispersion of acid mine drainage". This is despite the fact that it has committed to improving the safety of the water, much of which comes from the Olifants catchment area.

Glencore, one of South Africa's largest coal producers with three wholly-owned and joint venture operations, operates its largest mine (and the country's third largest in 2021) about 20km south-west of the regional capital, eMalahleni. The Tweefontein mine, which is partly open pit and partly underground, has increased its production to almost 20 million tonnes per year, according to South African Department of Water Sanitation (DWS) data for 2021.

In 2019, the activist law firm Center of Environmental Rights (CER) included Tweefontein and Goedgevonden (also owned by Glencore) on its blacklist of South African coal mines that violate national water laws. Compliance with the water management and quality requirements attached to the mining licence is a mandatory condition for continuing operations. Despite this, the management of the Tweefontein mine has made little progress and has defied repeated warnings from the national authorities to provide effective wastewater treatment, and to stop the excessive pollution that is affecting the supply of clean water to downstream communities.

The government has taken no coercive action to force Glencore to comply fully. "Our delinquent authorities give in to the pressures of the coal mining industry and do not have the guts to enforce our laws," Mariette Lifferink told Voxeurop.
More : Behind the green curtain: uncovering the spin game of global asset managers

The South African activist secured evidence of Glencore's continued unlawful behaviour through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), the government agency responsible for these matters. The DWS provided her with exclusive records (seen by Voxeurop), detailing the trail of fraud observed by public inspectors since 2017. Some of the violations also affected Glencore's two other mines in the country (Goedgevonden and iMpunzi). According to a 2021 monitoring report, many prior violations identified at the Tweefontein site are still unresolved (4). In particular, several pollutants discharged into the Tweefontein Spruit, a river which flows through the Tweefontein mining concession, continued to exceed the concentration limits set out in the Water Use Permit, which is on the way to be renewed nonetheless.

The same applies to the other rivers (Zaaiwaterspruit, Klippoortjiespruit and Rietspruit) that the Tweefontein River crosses outside the mine boundaries. These contaminated rivers are tributaries of the wider Olifants River (managed by a special authority), whose catchment area is the most important in the province, providing water for domestic use, fishing, agriculture and ecosystems stretching as far as the iconic Kruger National Park. A follow-up inspection in 2023 found that, despite some improvements, contaminated run-off and toxic deposits remained at the mine, and that Tweefontein's water once again did not meet sufficient quality standards to be released from the reservoir into the water supply network.

In March 2024, the Tweefontein Complex site manager sent a letter to the DWS making new commitments to effectively implement the remediation plan agreed with the inspectorate two years earlier. Both the DWS and Glencore declined to comment on the issue, which follows other environmental and human rights controversies in which the world's leading coal, copper and zinc producer has been involved over the years, mainly in Peru and Colombia.
J.P. Morgan-Glencore greenwashing show must go on

Like any other asset manager, J.P. Morgan relies on data collected both from investee companies and from third parties to quantify the impact (be it negative or positive) of its self-proclaimed green investments. A key data source is the rating agency MSCI, which gives Glencore an average score for ESG risks, but a minus for alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.

In the sustainability disclosure documents attached to its funds, J.P. Morgan admits that it cannot "guarantee the accuracy, availability or completeness of its proprietary system or third-party data". And indeed, neither the asset manager nor the ESG analysts would have had a chance of discovering the Tweefontein mine's excessive water pollution had Glencore not taken the initiative to inform them.

As a result of flawed due diligence (overlooking unreported cases), J.P. Morgan has so far reported a positive impact for its green funds, despite the fact that investors have profited from Glencore's water devastation in South Africa. What is more, investor money has been poured directly into this environmental scourge through the purchase of the company's corporate bonds. In fact, the Swiss mining giant's bond prospectus explicitly lists the main company's mining operations, including the Tweefontein mine. This means that the proceeds could be used to finance any of those activities. Glencore’s spokesman refused to clarify how much of the proceeds went or may go to the company's South African operations. “Proceeds are used for general corporate purposes,” he said.

J.P. Morgan's green funds are officially committed to, among other things, "protecting internationally proclaimed human rights and reducing toxic emissions". These combined claims imply that companies in the portfolio do not hamper access to clean water, which is recognised as a human right under international law, including through the implementation of water decontamination (5), and is enshrined in the South African constitution.

These promises are advertised in all the funds' sustainability disclosure documents, which claim to meet their commitments by excluding companies involved in harmful activities, including coal. However, J.P. Morgan's exclusion policy allows investments in companies that derive less than 20% of their revenue from coal production or distribution. This exemption leaves room for greenwashing. As a J.P. Morgan spokesperson told Voxeurop: "MSCI ESG Manager shows that Glencore has 9.79% exposure (i.e. to coal)", making it a perfect “sustainability” candidate.

In addition, the fund's policy excludes companies that violate relevant OECD and UN standards requiring avoidance of freshwater degradation, mitigation of environmental herm and remediation of local stakeholder grievances (6). However, this exclusion is limited to companies included in the tiny portion of J.P. Morgan's funds that qualify as fully 'sustainable'. According to EU rules, this portion can only include activities that do not harm key environmental objectives (according to the Taxonomy Regulation), such as water protection and pollution prevention.

The J.P. Morgan spokesperson declined to clarify whether this portion, or at least the broader ESG portion that helps achieve some of the fund's objectives (environmental and/or social characteristics), includes Glencore, which may even be outside of both. These two subsets of investments represent at least 20% and 51% respectively of the two funds mislabelled as ESG, while they may represent a smaller or larger proportion of the other funds' portfolios. Despite these minimalist thresholds, J.P. Morgan's attracts investors' attention by using the appealing phrase "sustainable investment funds" on its marketing website.

Nicola Koch, head of the 2° Investing Initiative (2DII), an independent, non-profit think tank working to align financial markets and regulation with the goals of the Paris Agreement, points out the irony: the “crazy consequence of the loopholes in the EU legislation is that asset managers can theoretically invest the non-ESG portion of their funds in companies that do not meet international standards".
ESG data-driven tactics hide reality on the ground

In an email to J.P. Morgan's investor relations department, we mentioned Mariette Lifferink's complaint to Umunna. We asked whether Glencore's misconduct in Mpumalanga merited scrutiny as a potential misalignment with the Green Fund's objectives, and whether it would lead to a reassessment of the overall sustainability performance of the investments and engagement with the mining company, or even its removal from the portfolio. So far we have not received any explanation.

We know that J.P. Morgan does not prioritise water pollution when engaging with companies in its green funds, although it does include water emissions in its EU-compliant impact indicators. Such indicators are established under EU rules to measure the progress of funds towards their objectives. It is worth noting that for each indicator, J.P. Morgan quantifies the score by aggregating the impact of all companies included in all managed funds.
More : How Italy’s largest fossil fuel company uses climate-related bonds as a loophole to keep financing hydrocarbons

This means that water pollution can still show a downward trend across J.P. Morgan's green investments, even though individual companies may fail to reduce water pollution at specific production sites. This is not to mention cases where a company does not even disclose its negative impacts, such as Glencore in relation to the Tweefontein mine.

As mentioned in the funds' sustainability disclosure documents, J.P. Morgan's ESG checklist includes issuer reports. The water-related incidents mentioned in Glencore's 2023 Sustainability Report make no reference to the persistent breaches at the Tweefontein mine, resulting in over-contamination. The report whitewashes the reality by stating: "We require our industrial operations to [...] develop water management strategies to maximise the efficient and sustainable use of this important natural resource [...] and protect access to water for other users." The ESG scoreboard mentioned in the report adds: "We treat water prior to discharge in accordance with regulatory approvals, permits and licences".

In a separate email, we asked the Glencore spokesperson if the complaint Mariette Lifferink signalled to the Tweefontein mine manager (before informing Chuka Umunna) was escalated to the highest corporate level to trigger investigations and remedial action, in line with the monitoring mechanism outlined in the company's sustainability report and bond prospectus (7). We also asked whether the controversy had been communicated to both bondholders and shareholders (including J.P. Morgan's green funds). We were told that the case was being kept confidential.

We shared our findings on Glencore's activities in South Africa with J.P. Morgan and asked them to comment. "We decline to comment beyond what's in the public domain," said the company's spokesperson, refusing to answer our questions.

Officially, J.P. Morgan may pretend to be unaware of the reality on the ground.

But their compliance department has been informed by Lifferink, as has Chuka Umunna.

FOOTNOTES


1) J.P. Morgan ESG-labeled green funds

Global Research Enhanced Index Equity ESG

Europe Research Enhanced Index Equity ESG

2) Local news