Expansion of Antarctic bottom water contributed to the end of the last Ice Age

New study highlights the key role of the Southern Ocean in the Earth’s climate system

Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR)

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

The Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica plays a vital role in the global climate. A new study shows that, at the end of the last ice age, Antarctic bottom water expanded significantly, releasing stored carbon dioxide from the depths.

Photo: Vivek Mehra, OceanImageBank

view more 

Credit: Vivek Mehra, Ocean Image Bank

Around 12,000 years ago, the last Ice Age ended, global temperatures rose and the early Holocene began, during which time human societies became increasingly settled. A new study, published today in Nature Geoscience, shows the important role played by the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica in this transition.

Led by Dr Huang Huang of the Laoshan Laboratory in Qingdao, with the involvement of Dr Marcus Gutjahr, a geochemist at GEOMAR, the team reconstructed the spatial extent of Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) in the Southern Ocean over the past 32,000 years.

“We wanted to understand how the influence of Antarctic Bottom Water, the coldest and densest water mass in the global ocean, changed during the last deglaciation, and what role it played in the global carbon cycle,” says Huang, who completed his PhD at GEOMAR in 2019 and now works as a scientist in Qingdao, China.

Sediment cores reveal the origin of deep-water masses

To achieve this, the researchers analysed nine sediment cores from the Atlantic and Indian sectors of the Southern Ocean. These cores were taken from depths between 2,200 and 5,000 metres, and from widely spaced locations. By examining the isotopic composition of the trace metal neodymium, which is incorporated into sediments from the surrounding seawater, the researchers were able to reconstruct the extent of Antarctic Bottom Water over tens of thousands of years.

“Dissolved neodymium and its isotopic fingerprint in seawater are excellent indicators of the origin of deep-water masses,” explains Dr Marcus Gutjahr. “In earlier studies, we noticed that the neodymium signature in the deep South Atlantic only reached its modern composition around 12,000 years ago. However, sediments from the last Ice Age showed values that are not found anywhere in the Southern Ocean today. Initially, we thought the method was flawed or that there was something wrong with the sediment core. But the real question was: What could generate such a signal? Such an exotic isotopic signature can only develop when deep water remains almost motionless for extended periods. In such circumstances, benthic fluxes – chemical inputs from the seafloor – dominate the isotopic imprint in marine sediments.”

Two phases of expansion and their role in releasing carbon dioxide

During the last Ice Age, the extremely cold, dense deep water that forms around Antarctica today was substantially retracted. Instead, large parts of the deep Southern Ocean were filled with carbon-rich water masses originating from the Pacific – a glacial precursor to today’s Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW). The CDW is described as carbon-rich in the study because it circulates in the deep ocean for long periods with limited ventilation. Consequently, more dissolved carbon remained stored in the ocean, keeping atmospheric CO2 concentrations low.

As the planet warmed and the ice sheets melted between about 18,000 and 10,000 years ago, the volume of Antarctic Bottom Water expanded in two distinct phases. These phases coincided with known warming events in Antarctica. As vertical mixing in the Southern Ocean increased, the carbon that had been stored in the deep ocean was able to return to the atmosphere.

“The expansion of the AABW is linked to several processes,” explains Gutjahr. “Warming around Antarctica reduced sea-ice cover, resulting in more meltwater entering the Southern Ocean. The Antarctic Bottom Water formed during this transitional climate period had a lower density due to reduced salinity. This late-glacial AABW was able to spread further through the Southern Ocean, destabilising the existing water-mass structure and enhancing exchanges between deep and surface waters.”

Until now, many studies have assumed that changes in the North Atlantic, including the formation of the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW), were the dominant drivers behind shifts in deep-water circulation in the South Atlantic. However, the new data indicate that northern influences were more limited than previously thought. Instead, the displacement of a glacial, carbon-rich deep-water mass by newly formed Antarctic Bottom Water is thought to have played a central role in the rise of atmospheric CO2 at the end of the last Ice Age.

Southern Ocean heat storage and Antarctic ice loss

“Comparisons with the past are always imperfect,” says Gutjahr, “but ultimately it comes down to how much energy is in the system. If we understand how the ocean responded to warming in the past, we can better grasp what is happening today as Antarctic ice shelves continue to melt.”

Due to its size alone, the Southern Ocean plays a significant role in regulating the Earth’s climate. Over the past five decades, waters deeper than roughly 1,000 metres around Antarctica have warmed significantly faster than most other parts of the global ocean. In order to understand how these changes affect the ocean’s capacity to absorb and release carbon dioxide, physical and biogeochemical processes must be monitored over long periods and integrated into climate models.

“I want to properly understand the modern ocean in order to interpret signals from the past,” Gutjahr says. “If we can trace how Antarctic Bottom Water has changed over the last few thousand years, we can assess more accurately how rapidly the Antarctic Ice Sheet may continue to lose mass in the future.”

Palaeoclimate data obtained from sediment cores are indispensable for this, offering insights into past climates that were warmer than today and helping to improve projections of future climate change.

---

Journal

Nature Geoscience

DOI

10.1038/s41561-025-01853-7 

Article Title

Expansion of Antarctic Bottom Water driven by Antarctic warming in the last deglaciation

Article Publication Date

1-Dec-2025

Sediment core retrieval: A sample is taken from the seafloor and brought on board. By examining the sediment layers, researchers can determine how water masses have changed over thousands of years.

Sediment cores are examined directly on board. More detailed analyses will follow in laboratories back home at a later date. For this study, the isotopic signature of the trace metal neodymium was used to determine the age and origin of the deep water tens of thousands of years ago.

Photo: Huang Huang, GEOMAR

DE-GLOBALIZATION

Indian IT professionals bear unseen costs of multinational companies’ shift to home-based working

New study reveals hidden strain of remote work in the Global South

University of Bath

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Research from the University of Bath exposes the overlooked burdens of remote working in the Global South, revealing how it transfers economic, physiological and emotional strain to Indian IT workers supporting global firms.

Drawing on in-depth interviews with 51 Indian IT professionals*, the research reveals how remote work demands adaptations going far beyond setting up a home office or managing work-life boundaries. 

Workers are balancing the needs of multigenerational households in small living spaces, adjusting daily routines, managing frequent power outages and unreliable internet connectivity, navigating pervasive surveillance technologies, and sharing constrained internet bandwidth among several family members.

The research shows that while organisations benefit from reduced operational costs, they often transfer infrastructural responsibilities to employees, without adequate support. Workers even reported installing industrial-grade power backups in regions with unreliable power.

“In the Global South, where infrastructure is volatile and homes are often shared with extended family, the burden of making remote work viable falls disproportionately on entire households,” said Professor Vivek Soundararajan, from the University of Bath’s School of Management, who led the study.

The study, published in the Journal of Economic Geography, highlights five key dimensions of how IT workers have to adapt their households at multiple levels to sustain professional work, namely space, time, technical, surveillance, and emotional. 

“Remote work's big promise was that talent could work from anywhere but it didn’t eliminate workplace inequality, it just moved it into the home," said Professor Soundararajan.

"Indian IT professionals - doing identical jobs to their counterparts in London or New York- spend their salaries on industrial backup power systems, negotiate with apartment associations over equipment installations, and coordinate elaborate family schedules just to stay online.” 

India’s IT sector employs 5.80 million professionals. They supply remote services to multinational clients across finance, healthcare, retail and government.

“Our findings call for a rethink of remote work policies, one that integrates home as an integral component of productive work,” said co-author Dr Pankhuri Agarwal. “Organisations and policymakers must recognise that home/remote working is not inherently equitable or flexible.

“Family structure and housing arrangements are completely different to the Global North and pose very different remote working challenges. Companies must better understand the realities on the ground for remote work if they want to protect worker wellbeing.”

The researchers say that while 'infrastructural volatility' is a condition endemic to the Global South it is increasingly relevant worldwide, as climate change and economic pressures strain infrastructure globally, including the UK. 

The research was supported by a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship and contributes to emerging debates on the geography of work, digital capitalism, and the future of labour in post-pandemic economies https://embed-dignity.com/.

Remote work and reorganisation of household infrastructure in the Global South: insights from the Indian Information Technology industry is published in the Journal of Economic Geography.

 

---

Journal

Journal of Economic Geography

DOI

10.1093/jeg/lbaf052 

Method of Research

Case study

Subject of Research

People

Opinion...

The American anti-Israel awakening

Pro-Palestine protesters, wearing Palestinians keffiyeh and carrying Palestinian flags and banners, attend the rally outside the News Corp headquarters, the home of Fox News and march to Hudson Yards in Manhattan, New York City, to mark two years since the outbreak of war in Gaza on October 07, 2025 in New York, United States. [Selçuk Acar – Anadolu Agency]

by Dr Sania Faisal El-Husseini
November 28, 2025 

Middle East Monitor 

The renowned American newspaper The New York Times warned a few days ago about the rise of what it described as “right-wing antisemitism”, confirming the emergence of serious divisions among Republicans regarding their support for Israel and their stance toward Jews, in what marks a generational change in the traditional position of the party. The American Right has never been a concern for Israel; rather, such concern has historically come from the political Left, especially within the Democratic Party and its progressive wing. Conservative media figure Tucker Carlson faced intense criticism after conducting an interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes. Likewise, Vice President J.D. Vance avoided commenting on the interview, which exposed him to criticism because he had previously made his opposition to Fuentes clear. Deborah Lipstadt, the former Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism, under President Joe Biden, warned that Carlson’s interview legitimises Fuentes’ ideas and gives them a platform, bringing them into mainstream political discourse.

After the events of 7 October, Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, and others have become a phenomenon that is especially visible in the American political sphere. Although they existed previously, the rise in their viewership and the growing attention to the issues they raise on their personal media platforms, and among those interested in politics, now reflect a significant development in the American landscape. Last month, the average number of viewers for Nick Fuentes’s program “America First” reached one million viewers per episode, despite being banned from numerous streaming services. Candace Owens averaged around 2.3 million viewers, and Tucker Carlson’s viewership averaged 1.25 million viewers, and his interview with Fuentes alone brought in 6.5 million views.

For instance, in his latest episode, Fuentes continued his focus on the contrast between two fragments within the Right, one being pro-Israel and the other anti-Israel, something that can be interpreted as an ideological struggle within the Republican Party. A report by The New York Times considered that this dilemma could become a central point of conflict during the upcoming 2026 primary elections and the 2028 presidential elections. Fuentes, who is in his twenties, adopts a position opposed to unconditional U.S. support for Israel, noting in his interview with Carlson that any support must be based on “America First” interests rather than a blind loyalty to Israel. In the same interview, Fuentes described Jews as “unable to assimilate” and denied the possibility of separating Jews from Israel, which he bases on the fact that for many Jews, their religion, ethnicity, and identity are deeply tied to their support for Israel. Given his growing popularity, Fuentes’s positions are considered dangerous in a society that has deemed discussion of such issues taboo for many years.

Following that interview, a division erupted within conservative Republican circles. Some leaders deemed Fuentes’s statements as antisemitic, while others, especially those aligned with the “America First” approach, argued that his comments fall under freedom of expression within the party, and that discussing Israel’s role in US politics should be based on America’s interests first, not unwavering loyalty to others. This position opens the door to the possibility of directing criticism toward Jews and Israel.

Tucker Carlson is a journalist, presenter, and veteran opinion commentator. He was one of the most prominent hosts on Fox News, presenting a well-known program there until 2023, after which he moved to speaking through digital media platforms such as the “X” network. Carlson remained influential despite leaving Fox News, as many conservative audiences in America continue to follow him, and his ideas resonate strongly within those circles. Carlson adopts conservative Republican views on immigration, multiculturalism, and globalisation, and in recent years he has taken a sharply critical stance toward Israel and its relationship with the United States. He has strongly criticised US military and political support for Israel, especially after the Gaza war, arguing that America is endangering its own interests and calling for “American neutrality” in the conflict. He does not support the Palestinians; rather, he focuses on what he considers the interests of his own country.

Tucker Carlson criticised Israel in his interviews with both Nick Fuentes and Nalin Haley. In his conversation with Haley, Carlson discussed US-Israeli relations and Israel’s influence in American politics, reiterating his view that Israel represents a “strategic burden” on the United States rather than a source of strength. Haley, the son of Nikki Haley, who is a former US ambassador to the United Nations during Trump’s first term, has begun to gain traction in the past year as a young, influential right-wing voice. He argued that deep, unconditional support for Israel is harmful, asserting that the United States should not view Israel as a “permanently exceptional ally.” Haley presents himself as a voice of the “younger generation”, dissatisfied with the traditional alliance between the American conservative movement and Israel.

Candace Owens is considered a political activist and media commentator known for her conservative positions. She became famous for her strong criticism of liberalism, and in recent years she has emerged as a prominent face within what is called the “New American Right”. She speaks across media platforms and social networks and belongs to an older generation than Fuentes, enjoying significant viewership, particularly among wide sectors of the American Right. In her latest broadcast. Owens focused on exposing the relationship between Israel and Zionist connection to the killing of Charlie Kirk, claiming she possessed evidence or indications pointing to such involvement.

OPINION: UNSC 2803: The US-Israeli scheme to partition Gaza and break Palestinian will

This is merely a sample of a broader phenomenon spreading in the United States, led by a group of right-wing figures, some of whom are from younger generations, and others who are media personalities or social-media influencers, who enjoy substantial followings among right-wing and Republican audiences. They share clear, critical positions rooted in rejecting the traditional alliance with Israel in favour of advancing “America First”. Among them are businessman and activist Vivek Ramaswamy, media personality Kari Lake, and media influencer Lauren Chen. Significant shifts have also appeared in the attitudes of young Republicans toward Israel, as traditional support has declined after the Gaza war and the subsequent escalation with Lebanon and Iran. A study conducted at Northwestern University found that only 43 per cent of young people who identify as Republicans support Israel, compared with 72 per cent among those aged 65 and older. A Washington Post poll also showed that the percentage of Republicans under age fifty who view Israel positively dropped sharply from 63 per cent before the Gaza war to only 48 per cent now.

In a related development, Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene announced a few days ago her resignation from Congress, following a dispute with Trump over the Jeffrey Epstein case and other files, despite years of her strong loyalty to him. Greene expressed her condemnation of what she described as the genocide carried out by Israel in Gaza, becoming the first Republican congresswoman to acknowledge this. She stated that the ongoing bombing of civilians and the killing of children constitutes a crime against humanity, also pointing out that the Republican Party’s blind support for Israel, influenced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), comes at the expense of humanitarian values, and fuels regional conflicts at the cost of civilian suffering. She affirmed that she preferred stepping down from a position that imposes blind allegiance and restricts freedom of expression, adding that labeling criticism of Israel as antisemitism is manipulative. Greene’s resignation carries a strategic dimension, tied to the fracture occurring within the “Make America Great Again” movement in the Republican Party, particularly after the events of 7 October and Trump’s controversial positions on many domestic and foreign issues. Republican House Speaker, Mike Johnson, a strong supporter of Israel, called for isolating what he described as “isolationists” within the party, those opposed to wars and to supporting Israel, during the midterm elections. Pro-Israel leaders intend to fight these figures, as they now represent a growing trend within the party that challenges its traditional pro-Israel stance in US foreign policy. The New York Times recently highlighted this dilemma, noting that it could become a central point of conflict in the 2026 congressional midterms and the 2028 presidential elections.

Recent polls show that Republicans are gradually distancing themselves from their traditional, automatic support for Israel. A poll conducted in late August revealed that 14 per cent of Republicans described what is happening in Gaza to Palestinians as “genocide”, and 24 per cent considered that Israel’s military response “went too far”, according to another poll conducted by Associated Press and NORC, though these percentages remain lower than those among other segments of the American public. Half of independents and 70 per cent of Democrats said Israel’s response in Gaza exceeded acceptable limits. Yet the most significant finding comes from a third poll by the Associated Press, in which 57 per cent of Republicans said that US support enabled Israel’s actions in Gaza. Among independents and Democrats, that belief exceeded 63 per cent and 72 per cent respectively. Most Republicans also emphasise that the United States should not intervene in any Israeli war with Iran and that it should negotiate instead.

Dan Caldwell, former senior advisor at the Pentagon and close to Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, argued that Israel’s tendency to wage war with its neighbours endangers US bases and drags the United States into conflict. He added that the end of the war offers the United States an opportunity to do what it has attempted, and failed, to do for nearly a decade: rationalise and reduce its presence in the Middle East. Popular podcaster, Theo Von, who hosted Trump during last year’s campaign and is credited with reconnecting him to the younger generation, said that what the United States is doing appears to serve Israel’s interests alone. Von’s views are intensifying debate over US-Israel relations. And just like the progressives in the Democratic Party, voices within the “Make America Great Again” movement are now questioning the legitimacy of AIPAC.

It is also noteworthy that the Heritage Foundation, which shaped much of Trump’s policy agenda, is calling for the gradual termination of US aid to Israel. Similarly, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), which focuses on promoting the “America First” agenda within the Republican conservative movement, recently published a paper calling for a reduction in US security and economic support for Israel, essentially proposing a recalibration of traditional support in line with America First principles. Both institutions serve as intellectual pillars that may influence decision-makers within the Republican current.

It is well known that the Republican Party supports Israel by a large majority, even though support for Israel has traditionally been a bipartisan consensus shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Before 1948, the United States began supporting Jewish presence in Palestine and helped solidify that presence, especially toward the end of the British Mandate. After that year, both parties began offering unconditional support for Israel. In the 1980s, American politics witnessed an alliance between the evangelical Right and the Republican Party, following the evangelicals’ decision to enter the political arena, a significant shift that paved the way for Ronald Reagan’s rise to power. This development allowed AIPAC’s role and influence to be emphasised and enhanced in American political life, placing the lobby at the core of US policymaking, especially regarding US policy toward Israel.

Since 1948, support for Israel has been a point of agreement between both major parties in the United States. Israel’s popularity within the Democratic Party gradually declined, but Netanyahu’s 2015 speech in Congress against Obama and the Iran nuclear deal marked a major turning point in deepening that decline. Today, we are witnessing a noticeable decrease in support among the Republican Party, the Right, and the nationalists for the unusual, highly privileged relationship between the United States and Israel. The US-Israel alliance is no longer as solid as it once was, and there is a widening rift, one that has already begun within the Republican Party itself, which for decades was Israel’s strongest and most committed supporter. American leaders, both Republican and Democrat, including president Trump himself, admit to this rift. This rift may gradually lead to a transformation in US policy toward Israel for the first time since 1948.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Targeting Palantir And Nvidia: Profits, Prophets And Overvalued AI Stocks – OpEd



November 6, 2025 
By Binoy Kampmark

In an industry of seedy soothsayers, cocksure charlatans and resourceful rogues, honest and accurate appraisals are exquisitely rare. When it comes to economics, investments and finance, this is particularly so. Certitude, however, tends to be in abundance for those predicting the next financial crash, the sort that will singe earnings and strafe savings. Take, for instance, hedge fund investor Michael Burry, a man of sufficient notoriety to warrant a celluloid depiction of himself by Christian Bale in the 2015 film The Big Short.
Financial software

On that occasion, Burry’s hunch, albeit an educated one, was that the US housing bubble would implode in what became the Great Recession of 2007-9. The buccaneering investor shorted mortgage-backed securities ahead of the collapse, raking in profits as the subprime mortgage sundered. But his record is by no means immaculate, seeing falls when they have not eventuated, especially on tech stocks. For him, the language of catastrophe is never far away. An April 7 post on X this year is fabulously bleak: “Millennials going through 9/11, two economic recessions, a pandemic, the looming threat of WW3, AI job automation, and now facing the ‘biggest crash in history’.”

Towards the end of October, he felt in an oracular mood: “Sometimes we see bubbles,” he wrote in another post. “Sometimes, there is something to do about it. Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play.” His Scion Asset Management hedge fund subsequently moved 80% of its US$1.1 billion portfolio to place options against Palantir (PTLR) and Nvidia (NVDA). These will pay handsomely should shares in these AI-linked companies fall. Burry remains convinced that technology stocks, certainly when it comes to artificial intelligence, are overvalued and set for the precipitous plummet. Whether this is due to growing scepticism about the herd-like rush to adopt AI, the debate about necessary regulation, or that broader sensibility that what rises or swells so rapidly must fall or puncture, is impossible to know. Certainly, the incestuous circular financing tech companies have been engaging in is crying out for a stinging correction. But it is precisely moves of this nature by Scion Asset Management that send jitters through the market, turning preaching prophets into market saboteurs.

Surely enough, Palantir’s shares fell by 8% on November 4 despite exceeding Wall Street estimates of returns for the third quarter. The stocks had risen to skyscraper levels – 173% for the year heading into trading that day. Nvidia’s fell by 4% after having improved by 50% this year. “It seems fatigue over AI and the current earnings run has investors questioning the sustainability of the AI hype,” reasoned financial analyst Farhan Badami. “That’s dragged down AI companies overnight in markets.”

Sympathy for such companies is bound to be in short supply. Palantir is the sort of data analytics company any half-decent minded individual would wish to fail. In April this year, 404 Media revealed that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had paid the company millions of dollars to modify the ICE database to enable it to “complete target analysis of known populations” and spruce up the targeting of that tool and enforcement priorities. The database gives ICM agents the means to sort individuals using hundreds of specific categories covering physical attributes, administrative background and mobility. ICE Director Todd Lyons has fantasies of running the agency’s crude, clumsy deportation policy “like [Amazon] Prime, but with human beings” in an effort to treat the matter “like a business”.

This charming dystopian thought is a good pairing with the sinister propaganda Palantir enjoys promoting, including a campaign on college campuses that echoes the stirrings of a Nuremberg rally cry: “Our culture has fallen into shallow consumerism while abandoning national purpose. Too few in Silicon Valley have asked what ought to be built – and why.” Palantir, to that end, was built to conquer such flabby complacency. “On the factory floor, in the operating room, across the battlefield – we build to dominate.”



The company CEO, Alex Karp, has been less than impressed by Burry’s short selling efforts. “The two companies he’s shorting are the ones making all the money, which is super weird,” he told CNBC’s Squawk Box in sheer bafflement. “The idea that chips and ontology is what you want to short is batshit crazy.” He is confident that any damage will be minimal. “I do think this behaviour is egregious and I’m going to be dancing around when it’s proven wrong.”

The latest fall is being taken with a grain of salt among some investors, though you can hardly trust them. Take the tepid assessment from equity trading strategist at Citi, Vishal Vivek. “A little bit of risk is not going to take the sheen off what’s been a pretty remarkable year, in fact, a pretty remarkable three-year stretch,” he tells Reuters on whether AI stocks were proving less attractive. “If anything, there’s a reasonable chance that you’re going to pause your buying maybe, but you’re not going to necessarily sell your big positions into year-end because you’re worried about one or two companies that have underperformed.”

Leaving aside such babble and bloviation, if there is a crash in overvalued AI stocks likely to rival the market falls that took place in the Great Recession, a similar government program used for the banks and banksters will be sought by Karp and company. In the private sector, foolish losses and unscrupulous conduct regarding investments often turns its members into temporary socialists. Profit, on the hand, is the sort of thing that rests firmly and assuredly in the clasping hands of the corporate sector, the result of purported intelligence and industry. That’s private enterprise for you.

Binoy Kampmark

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Global South's Data-Colonialism Paradox

Vivek Parat | 09 Oct 2025

• 
  
• 
  

Data is not the new oil; it is the new soil. If developing nations can’t grow their own crops—algorithms, services, taxes—someone else will harvest the field.

Last October, Blessing Adebayo, a small cosmetics seller in Lagos, received an e-mail from Amazon Web Services: her customers’ data would henceforth be stored in Ireland. “I thought my files lived in my own shop,” she told me. “Suddenly they’re in a cold room 6,000 kilometres away, and I have to pay dollars to reach them.”

Blessing’s complaint is a miniature of a much larger shift. Across Africa, Asia and Latin America, governments are discovering that the data their citizens produce—location histories, health records, shopping lists—are quietly shipped to server farms in Silicon Valley, Dublin or Shanghai, where they are refined into the algorithms that now shape what people watch, buy and even whom they vote for. The profits stay north; the raw material is mined south. A new colonial pipeline has been built, only this time the cargo is digital.

How Much is Leaving?

The UNCTAD Digital Economy Report 2024 calculates that developing countries attract less than 30% of global foreign investment in digital sectors, while 80% of projects are crowded into just 10 economies. In other words, the value created from Nigerian clicks or Indonesian swipes is booked as GDP (gross domestic product) in California.

Nigeria has started to push back. In March 2024, the communications regulator gave Google, Microsoft and Amazon six months to build local data centres or face service restrictions. “We told them no more waivers—we need a road map,” says Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, the country’s top digital official. The ultimatum is less about cables and more about sovereignty: if Lagos cannot tax or audit the data, it cannot claim a share of the wealth that data generates.

Chinese firms have laid 70% of Africa’s 4G backbone; Amazon controls roughly half of Latin American cloud contracts. These cables and server halls look like development, but they lock countries into long-term leases. Seventy per cent of Nigerian government agencies still keep their records on overseas clouds, African Development Bank figures show. Moving them home will cost an estimated $1 billion—money that could build 10,000 kilometres of urban water pipes.

India’s 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act and Vietnam’s 24-month local-storage rule are attempts to claw back control, yet they tackle only geography, not intelligence: the chips, models and engineers that turn raw data into high-value services remain in the Global North. Scholars call the result “sovereignty simulacrum”—flags on a map, but power elsewhere.

Environmental Bill

Southern countries also pay the hidden ecological cost. They export cobalt, lithium and copper at low prices, import expensive phones, and later receive container-loads of e-waste. The circular flow mirrors the old plantation economy: ship out cheap, bring back dear.

Three experiments point a way out. 

1. Regional cloud: The African Union’s draft Data Policy Framework treats member-state data as a pooled strategic asset, big enough to bargain with Big Tech. 

2. Public fibre: Uruguay’s state-owned ANTEL has achieved 94 % broadband coverage while keeping traffic—and profits—inside national borders. 

3. Code with capital: Chile is mapping data-centre heat and water use so that every new server farm must serve national development goals, not just foreign balance sheets.

Bottom Line

Data is not the new oil; it is the new soil. If developing countries cannot grow their own crops—algorithms, services, taxes—someone else will harvest the field. Blessing Adebayo’s tiny shop is a reminder that sovereignty begins with the simplest question: where is my information, and who is making money from it?

The writer, a technology-policy analyst and author, is Additional Personal Assistant to the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The views are personal.