1.2K

Many of the developing nations most vulnerable to climate change are “operating on increasingly tight budgets and at risk of defaulting on loans,” Natalia Alayza, Valerie Laxton, and Carolyn Neunuebel reported for the World Resources Institute in September 2023. They describe the pattern—which has been worsened by the pandemic and a global recession—as a “climate debt trap” for the affected countries.

Global standards for climate resilience require immense national budgets. Developing countries borrow from international credit lines and, as debt piles up, governments are unable to pay for essential needs, including climate protections. This, Alayza, Laxton, and Neunuebel reported, is increasingly true for the nations most affected by flooding, drought, and other consequences of climate change. Their report quoted the Minister of State for Finance in Belize, Christopher Coye, “How do we pursue climate action? We are fiscally constrained at this point.” Similarly, the finance minister of Barbados, Ryan Staughn, called for a debt crisis solution that “allows countries to be able to continue to respond to the climate crisis without getting ourselves into trouble.”

Debt distress in developing nations is a growing problem. As the World Resources Institute article reported, from 2011-2022, the number of developing countries where debt liabilities exceeded 60 percent of the nation’s GDP nearly tripled (from 22 nations to 59). Among the fifty most climate-vulnerable nations around the world, 23 countries (53 percent) are either in debt distress or at risk of it. In 2022, for instance, Ghana invested $6.3 billion to reduce its debt—but, because of its currency’s low value compared to the US dollar, the amount of Ghana’s debt obligations actually increased.

A 2018 study, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme in collaboration with the Imperial College Business School and SOAS University of London, determined that “climate vulnerability has already raised the average cost of debt in a sample of developing countries by 117 basis points” (or, in absolute terms, added interest payments of USD 40 billion across the past decade). One of this report’s key messages was the need for investments that “enhance the resilience of climate vulnerable countries” in order to help them deal not only “with the consequences of climate risks, but also bring down their cost of borrowing.”

These concerns have received limited corporate news coverage. For instance, a New York Times article detailed how defaults threaten a “lost decade” for poor countries. But this report focused primarily on defaults to the US and China, with no less focus on how poorer countries will combat deficits, especially as climate change escalates.

Source: Natalia Alayza, Valerie Laxton and Carolyn Neunuebel, “Developing Countries Won’t Beat the Climate Crisis Without Tackling Rising Debt,” World Resources Institute, September 22, 2023.

Editor’s Note: For prior coverage of this topic by Project Censored, see Debt Crisis Looms for World’s Poorest Nations, story #18 from State of the Free Press 2024.

Student Researcher: Tyler Sarro (Saint Michael’s College)

Faculty Evaluator: Rob Williams (Saint Michael’s College)

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Google has filed an antitrust complaint in Brussels against Microsoft, alleging its Big Tech rival engages in unfair cloud computing practices that has led to a reduction in choice and an increase in prices.

The US search giant has accused Microsoft of leveraging its Windows software to lock customers into its Azure cloud services, preventing them from easily switching to alternatives. 

In a complaint sent to the European Commission, seen by the Financial Times, Google said Microsoft is “exploiting” its customers’ reliance on products such as its Windows software by imposing “steep penalties” on using rival cloud providers.

Writing to antitrust investigators, Google said that a Microsoft customer who wants to move Windows software to Azure cloud “can do so essentially for nothing”, while a customer who wants to do the same to a cloud competitor “must pay a 400 per cent mark-up to buy new Windows server licenses”.

Amit Zavery, vice-president for Google Cloud, told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday that the search giant wants EU regulators to force Microsoft to remove restrictions on using cloud services from rivals. “If I already paid for these licenses, I should be able to use it where I choose to,” he said.

A complaint does not guarantee a formal probe, which would then take years to be resolved. The move comes as Google lags behind Microsoft and Amazon Web Services in a fierce battle over the global cloud computing market.

Google’s complaint comes after Microsoft successfully clinched a multimillion dollar deal with a group of rival cloud providers in July to avoid a formal investigation in Brussels over its dominance in the market.

Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, said his company’s deal resolved past concerns and brought even more competition to the sector.

Microsoft said that it has “settled amicably similar concerns raised by European cloud providers, even after Google hoped they would keep litigating. Having failed to persuade European companies, we expect Google similarly will fail to persuade the European Commission.”

Google also said in its complaint, which was sent on Tuesday to the EU’s powerful competition unit, that it was concerned that Microsoft was degrading the user experience of those customers that were moving their Windows software to competing cloud providers.

It also accused Microsoft of discriminatory practices as the financial penalties only apply to Azure’s main rivals, AWS, Google Cloud Platform and Alibaba Cloud.

FANS have been left fearing an iconic fizzy drink brand is set to be axed following a huge social media campaign.

Old Jamaica has uploaded a series of cryptic posts and videos online appearing to announce the end of its famous ginger beer beverage.

1

A clip on the brand’s website shows an actor pretending to be a shelf-stacker revealing “it’s time for our beloved Old Jamaica Ginger Beer to bid farewell to its beloved drinkers”.

Multiple posts on its Instagram account also call on shoppers to “enjoy it before it’s gone” and stating “farewell Old Jamaica”.

The series of mysterious posts has left some customers convinced the classic fizzy drink is set to axed imminently.

One said on X: “They’re apparently discontinuing the Old Jamaica Ginger Beer… haven’t we suffered enough as a people?!”

“Old Jamaica discontinuing their Ginger Beer? I have nothing left to live for,” said another.

A third commented: “Old Jamaica ginger beer is being discontinued??? This is criminal.”

However, others have taken to X questioning whether the social media campaign is all a ruse to gain the brand some traction.

“So this Old Jamaica Ginger Beer farewell thing is just some fancy clickbait marketing campaign right?”, said one fan.

Another added: “‘Old Jamaica ginger beer ending better be some marketing gimmick thing because I can not go the rest of my life without the number one top tier soft drink!

“Worst thing to ever happen on this date if so.”

The Sun has approached Refresco, which manufactures the beverage in the UK, and Beliv Company, which owns the brand, for comment.

We have asked both companies to confirm whether the Old Jamaica brand will indeed stop being sold in the UK or whether it is undergoing a rebrand.

However, Hernán Cerdeiro, chief coordinating officer and campaign lead from SAMY Alliance, the creative agency behind the social media Old Jamaica campaign, told Media Shotz: “The chance to ‘retire a brand’ was something that we relished, simply because as far as we can work out, it had never been done before so publicly.

“We wanted to give Old Jamaica’s loyal customers one last chance to say goodbye, to take that final sip, and see the can ride off into the sunset.”

Multiple supermarkets are still selling the classic 330ml can of Old Jamaica Ginger Beer so it doesn’t appear the product has been axed yet.

Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s all have the can available to buy, although Tesco says it has run out of stock.

Old Jamaica Ginger Beer first launched in the UK in 1988 and is currently available in a range of flavours including Pineapple Soda and Grape Soda.

Old Jamaica joins list of axed drinks

Old Jamaica Ginger Beer is not the first drink to bid farewell to customers in recent months.

Brands and retailers often discontinue products if they aren’t selling well or to freshen up their ranges.

Ribena fans were left distraught last month after finding out it had axed sparkling blackcurrant drinks.

A spokesperson for Ribena said it was “always reviewing and evolving our drinks to make sure our range is right for our consumers”.

In Spring, Lidl confirmed it had axed popular sparkling mixer Freeway from shelves much to the disappointment of customers.

One said on X: “Why on earth have you discontinued the best drink EVER?!?! I am beyond gutted.”

And Tesco fans were left “gutted” after finding out a popular boozy drink was to be culled from shelves.

Fans posted on X disgruntled upon discovering the Finest salted caramel liqueur had been discontinued, with one saying “this really upsets me”.

In March, fans were left begging for the return of Pepsi Max Raspberry after it was discontinued to make way for other flavours at the end of 2023.

One said: “Why have you stopped doing the Raspberry Pepsi Max!? That was the best flavour!”

Meanwhile, another added: “After you discontinued Pepsi Raspberry, I stopped drinking Pepsi. I’m drinking Aldi’s Twisted Fruits.”

Why are products axed or recipes changed?

Advertisement

ANALYSIS by chief consumer reporter James Flanders.

Food and drinks makers have been known to tweak their recipes or axe items altogether.

They often say that this is down to the changing tastes of customers.

There are several reasons why this could be done.

For example, government regulation, like the “sugar tax,” forces firms to change their recipes.

Advertisement

Some manufacturers might choose to tweak ingredients to cut costs.

They may opt for a cheaper alternative, especially when costs are rising to keep prices stable.

For example, Tango Cherry disappeared from shelves in 2018.

It has recently returned after six years away but as a sugar-free version.

Advertisement

Fanta removed sweetener from its sugar-free alternative earlier this year.

Suntory tweaked the flavour of its flagship Lucozade Original and Orange energy drinks.

While the amount of sugar in every bottle remains unchanged, the supplier swapped out the sweetener aspartame for sucralose.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

In the aftermath of World War II, we crafted a fragile yet ambitious international order founded on principles of equality among states and a commitment to collective security. This rules-based international order aimed to transcend the chaos of earlier conflicts, promoting peace and cooperation through mutual respect and legal frameworks.

However, we now find ourselves at a critical juncture, facing what can only be described as a near-death experience for international law. Political expediency has eclipsed the very ideals that once united nations, creating a landscape where some states are evidently “more equal than others.”

The crisis of multipolarity

The geopolitical arena has undergone a seismic shift since the conclusion of the unipolar moment, a time when the United States reigned as the undisputed superpower. Today, we navigate a tripolar world characterised by the competing influences of three dominant powers: the United States, Russia and China. Each of these nations pursues its own interests, often at the expense of the established international legal framework, leading to a complex web of contradictions and conflicts that jeopardise the stability of global governance.

In this tripolar moment, the relationships among these power centres are far from straightforward. Russia and China, while pursuing divergent geopolitical ambitions, have found a common adversary in the US. This alliance of convenience complicates international relations significantly. China, increasingly recognized as a formidable global player, has tacitly supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, demonstrating a strategic partnership that serves both nations’ interests against what they perceive as Western hegemony.

Russia, still nursing the wounds of its Soviet past, is determined to reclaim its status as a great power. Its invasion of Ukraine, framed as a “special military operation,” seeks to reinstate a sphere of influence reminiscent of the days when it could challenge US authority on the global stage.

Meanwhile, the US persists as an entrenched power center, leading a coalition of Western nations that largely oppose Russia’s aggression, advocating for Ukraine’s sovereignty and providing substantial military and intelligence support.

Hypocrisy from the West

The West’s contrasting approaches to Ukraine and Palestine, however, illustrate a stark hypocrisy. While the US and its allies have rallied against Russia, they have simultaneously turned a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, marked by accusations of genocide against Israel, has not elicited a similar fervour from the West. Instead, the US continues to support Israel, often providing it with carte blanche to act with impunity in the face of international law.

This duality raises troubling questions about the foundations of international law itself. When the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin was swiftly issued, the world observed a clear commitment to holding powerful leaders accountable for their actions. Conversely, efforts to hold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for potential war crimes have met with staunch resistance from the US and other Western allies, revealing a stark inconsistency in the application of international norms.

Moreover, countries like Germany, Italy and the UK, which play a pivotal role in the European theatre, have been significant arms suppliers to Israel, further complicating the moral landscape of international law. Such actions not only undermine the credibility of these states but also diminish the sanctity of international legal frameworks designed to protect human rights.

At the heart of this crisis lies a profound erosion of legitimacy. The assertion that “my international law is better/more legitimate than yours” has become a dangerous mantra among the great powers, leading to an environment where legal principles are manipulated to serve national interests rather than uphold justice. This manipulation has created a dangerous precedent: When powerful nations selectively enforce international law, they undermine the very framework that holds the global community together.

How will the world move forward?

As conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine escalate, the prospects for resolution appear increasingly bleak. Both situations are emblematic of a broader trend in which the rights and voices of less powerful states and populations are consistently sidelined. The legitimate concerns of these states, often characterised by military and economic fragility, have been relegated to the periphery, exacerbating feelings of disenfranchisement and despair.

Compounding this precarious situation is the fact that all three power centres — Russia, China, and the US — are nuclear powers. This reality introduces an element of existential risk into the geopolitical calculus. The spectre of mutual assured destruction looms large, deterring overt military confrontation but simultaneously advancing a climate of instability. The fear of escalation creates a paradox: While the potential for nuclear conflict acts as a deterrent, it also perpetuates a precarious status quo that could fall at any moment.

In this context, the erosion of international law is not merely a legal concern; it poses a tangible threat to global peace. The moral compass that once underpinned the post-World War II order has been fragmented, leaving a void filled by militaristic posturing and geopolitical machinations. As nations increasingly resort to power politics and the barrel of a gun, the ideals of diplomacy and mutual respect risk being relegated to mere afterthoughts.

As we stand at this precipice, the urgency for a reinvigoration of international law and the principles that govern it has never been more pronounced. The global community must reassert its commitment to a rules-based order that prioritises justice, equality and accountability. This requires not only a re-evaluation of the existing power dynamics but also a concerted effort to elevate the voices of states and populations that have long been silenced.

Moreover, there is a pressing need for mechanisms that ensure the equitable application of international law, devoid of the selective enforcement that has characterised recent decades. Only through such reforms can we hope to restore faith in the international legal system and ensure that it serves as a genuine arbiter of justice rather than a tool for the powerful.

The near-death experience of international law invites reflection on our shared future. As we navigate the treacherous waters of a tripolar world, the stakes are undeniably high. The survival of the post-World War II order hangs in the balance, dependent on our ability to confront the complexities of contemporary geopolitics with integrity and resolve. We must strive to heal the fractures within our global governance structures, lest we find ourselves careening towards a regression that could lead us back to the Stone Age. In these dangerous times, the moral choices we make will shape not only our present but the legacy we leave for generations to come.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

“I have seen some splendid red stretches of soil planted with vines, with a background of mountains of the most delicate lilac. And the landscapes in the snow, with the summits white against a sky as luminous as the snow, were just like the winter landscapes that the Japanese have painted . . . ”

Vincent van Gogh was writing to his brother Theo days after his arrival in Provence in February 1888. Inspired by his surroundings, he produced some 300 drawings and paintings during his more than two-year stay, many of which are on show in the National Gallery’s exhibition, Poets and Lovers.

“In Provence, Van Gogh was liberated,” says Christopher Riopelle, co-curator of the London exhibition. “He underwent a self-conscious process of transformation and found a visual aesthetic that made his work truly modern.” 

The “land of blue tones and gay colours” that drew the penniless artist away from the gloomy skies of northern Europe continues to hold magnetic appeal for those seeking unhurried calm. And it is being boosted by a new cultural energy. Average prices for prime property in the region increased by 22.5 per cent between early 2020 and 2023, says Kate Everett-Allen, head of European residential research at Knight Frank. “The price growth has now moved from stellar to sustainable, but stock levels remain tight.” Limited supply supports prices, she adds.

Provence is now officially categorised as part of Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur, a départment encompassing a long stretch of the Mediterranean coast and its hinterland. Van Gogh’s Provence — the Provence most sought after by international buyers — was more circumscribed. He largely worked in the Roman town of Arles and its immediate surroundings. Then, after a mental health crisis, near Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, where he painted “The Starry Night”.

“The target for most buyers,” says Rudi Janssens, founder of Janssens Immobilier/Knight Frank, “are the Luberon natural park [where the Golden Triangle stretches from Gordes to Bonnieux and Ménerbes], and Les Alpilles, a low mountain range which includes Saint-Rémy, Eygalières and Maussanne-les-Alpilles.”

Van Gogh’s “Yellow House” in Arles, backdrop to “The Bedroom” and to “Chair”, is one of the world’s most famous interiors. The town house, where he rented four rooms, was the setting for an artist’s colony, and his Sunflowers paintings were created to decorate the spare room in anticipation of Paul Gauguin’s visit in October 1888.

Arles’s cobbled streets and medieval ramparts have more recently become one of France’s most important centres for art and photography. The arrival of the Luma Foundation’s creative campus and its Frank Gehry-designed The Tower, completed in 2021, have attracted a new wave of contemporary artists through an exciting programme of exhibitions, which this year has included Judy Chicago, William Kentridge and Theaster Gates.

“Arles has always been a popular tourist destination but it had no real estate market, certainly not at the luxury end,” says Janssens. “Since Luma launched [in 2021] French buyers drawn by the art scene have bought here, and prices have gone up by almost 24 per cent over the past four years.”

Prices in Arles are around €350,000-€400,000 for a two or three-bedroom apartment or terraced house, though larger homes on the outskirts sell for more than €1mn. A 5.8 hectare estate, in the countryside on the threshold of the Camargue, with two houses, a swimming pool, tennis and pétanque courts, is on the market with Knight Frank for €1.98mn.

Since Luma launched [in 2021], French buyers have been drawn by the art scene and prices in Arles have gone up by almost 24 per cent over the past four years

In Provence, international buyers — many from Belgium and the UK — account for more than half of purchasers at the top of the market (where prime property starts from €1mn, “super-prime” homes sell for between €3mn and €8mn). These incomers are mainly seeking the grand bastides (manor houses originally built by prosperous farmers from the end of the 17th century), or the red-roofed mas, vernacular stone farmhouses whose origins date back to Roman times (one such six-bedroom house in Ménerbes is on the market at €2.85mn through Knight Frank). Even in Van Gogh’s time the bastides were used as summer houses by wealthy Marseillais. Today, a nine-bedroom house near Cadenet is listed for €1.995mn (Savills).

International buyers are mostly looking for properties that have been modernised, with heated swimming pools, summer kitchens, and, most importantly, climate control. “Air conditioning is now mandatory,” says Valérie d’André of Actuel Immobilier in Aix-en Provence. “Buyers also want a garden and trees to keep the temperature down.” People are willing to pay a premium for an easier life too, she adds: “There can be a 20-25 per cent difference in price between a renovated property and one which needs work, largely due to the high cost of renovation.”

Janssens sees a difference in demand from domestic and overseas house-hunters. “International buyers are looking for something ‘authentic’, where they don’t want to do any work; the French are more likely to be interested in a village house from the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s close to towns like Saint-Rémy, which are lively all year round.” 

English interior designer Lorraine Goble, who has lived in Provence for nearly a decade, cites its wide-ranging attractions. “We’re spoilt with events, from the traditional Camargue bulls paraded in the streets to jazz, pop and classical concerts set in arenas and vineyards. You can be as busy or as restful as you like.” She is now selling the third house she has renovated in Saint-Rémy.

Transport improvements since Van Gogh arrived by steam train are accelerating still: Marseille Provence Airport aims to become France’s second airport. A recently completed extension was designed by Foster + Partners and it is taking in new destinations, including plans for direct flights to the US. There is also the no-fly option of Eurostar to Avignon. Other forms of communication are also faster: during his stay, Van Gogh wrote more than 200 letters, but most villages in the Luberon and Les Alpilles now have access to fibre broadband.

All of which is bolstering property prices. “Though the pace of growth has moderated this year, prices have risen by 5 per cent,” says Everett-Allen, “making Provence France’s second best-performing market after Chamonix.”

Find out about our latest stories first — follow @ft_houseandhome on Instagram

Remote work offers an undeniable appeal for new business owners, including benefits like flexibility, access to endless markets, and virtually no overhead.

But as many new entrepreneurs quickly discover, running a remote business comes with its own set of hidden costs. And if you don’t plan for them, they can quickly drain your budget and disrupt your operations.

Let’s take a closer look at the hidden costs of remote work that new business owners tend to miss, and how you can plan for them upfront.

Business formation costs

As a new business owner, one of the first things you need to consider is how to structure your business. 

A common choice for remote startups is an LLC (Limited Liability Company) — but forming one (or choosing another business entity) comes with a range of state-specific requirements and costs.

For example, setting up an Illinois LLC involves more than just filing paperwork. While Illinois has one of the largest economies in the world (with a GDP of approximately $3.5 trillion), it also imposes relatively high taxes and fees. 

As an aspiring business owner, it’s essential to factor these in before planning your launch date.

Learning about business formation costs and details also helps you fully understand your tax obligations so you can remain compliant with state regulations. This is a foundational step that can save you from unexpected expenses down the line.

Website creation and maintenance fees 

A commonly overlooked cost of remote work is the fees involved when creating your own website. 

As a new business owner, your website will help you establish an online presence, showcase your products or services, and facilitate customer interactions.

But your expenses don’t stop at domain registration and initial design. 

Ongoing costs include website hosting, regular updates, security measures, and SEO optimization.

It’s also important to factor in the costs of hiring professionals for technical support and content creation. Since you’ll depend on your online presence to attract and retain customers, investing in these services is an invaluable routine expense. 

SaaS subscription fees 

You’ll also need a tech stack to help you run your remote business operations.

But endless SaaS (software-as-a-service) options are available on the market — from communication tools to team collaboration software to time trackers and beyond. This makes it easy to overspend on options you may not need.

That’s why it’s important to be mindful when building your tech stack. Choose tools that make the most sense for your specific business. 

For instance, if you are hosting or attending virtual meetings often, investing in AI meeting note-takers could help you record what’s discussed so you’re always on the same page with your clients and employees. 

Or, if you are running a remote team, having employee monitoring software can help you understand your employees’ work patterns so you can help them level up where needed.

Our advice? 

Outline your core work activities and operational scaling goals — and then find tools that can help you manage them as efficiently as possible. 

From there, look to G2 or Capterra for product reviews and ratings. Then, sign up for free trials to see how these SaaS products work in the “real world.” This can help you ensure they’re worth the cost before signing up for a monthly or annual plan.

Cybersecurity fees  

You may not have a large office building with equipment to protect, but as a remote entrepreneur, a lot of your sensitive company data will live online. 

Plus, if you’re running a team, your remote workers will also access sensitive company data from personal devices in various locations. This setup increases your exposure to cyber threats, data breaches, and system vulnerabilities. 

And cybersecurity breaches can be incredibly costly to resolve.

Enter Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM). CSPM helps secure cloud environments by automatically scanning for security vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. 

For startups, this tool is a lifesaver. By catching and fixing security issues before they escalate, you can prevent costly breaches that can result in both financial losses and reputational damage.

Unfortunately, many startups fail to set aside money in the budget for cybersecurity from the start — mistakenly thinking they’ll deal with it later. However, proper cybersecurity measures are essential for any remote business, and neglecting them can lead to bigger and more expensive problems down the line.

Consider these from the get-go so you can start your business with peace of mind.

Home office setup costs

Finally, don’t forget about your home office setup costs. 

You’ll need to set aside funds for a comfortable and functional workstation at home (or pay for a setup at a coworking station or private office). The costs for a quality chair, large desk, and computer can quickly add up — and you don’t want to skimp on these and create a setup that’s not comfortable. Or have a laptop that doesn’t give you what you need. 

Be sure to also factor in the cost of reliable high-speed internet and any upgrades you might need if you’re in an ultra-remote area. 

If you travel often, you may also need to consider paying for portable WiFi so you can work from anywhere worldwide.

Wrap up 

While remote work offers many advantages, it also comes with a series of hidden costs that a new business owner may overlook. 

The costs can stack up from business formation fees to cybersecurity expenses if you’re not careful.

Planning for these upfront and making strategic investments in the right tools and services is key to creating a more sustainable remote business model.

To get ahead of these hidden costs, list them out, review your initial business budget, and decide if you need to set aside more money beore launching. Be realistic about what you can afford. 

*Pro Tip: Set up informational interviews with other entrepreneurs in your target industry. Ask them how much their costs were when they first got started. (And what their monthly, quarterly, and annual expenses look like now.)

And if you find that you need to build up more of a savings first — that’s okay! 

It’s better to start your business when you have all of the cash you need to set it up just right. 

For more money resources, check out finance-monthly.com.