Latest News
-
Brazil's CADE sets a date for a key vote on the soy moratorium Appeal
The Brazilian antitrust agency CADE will start reviewing an appeal by oilseeds lobby Abiove, and grain traders including Cargill, Bunge and Bunge against a measure that ordered the companies to suspend the enforcement of the soy-moratorium program. A notice published on Tuesday in the official journal stated that the six members of the CADE tribunal would begin voting on the appeals on September 30. As government agencies fight over the legality of the moratorium - a corporate pact that has been in place for 20 years - the fate of this corporate pact, which is credited with slowing the deforestation caused by soy in the Amazon rainforest is in doubt. This increases the risks to global grain traders, as Brazil, the world's largest soybean exporter and producer, faces a crisis. The voluntary program that bars 30 companies from purchasing soybeans from Amazon farmers after July 2008 also could be a violation of Brazilian competition laws. CADE's General Superintendent Alexandre Barreto de Souza issued an order last month to grain traders ordering them to suspend the moratorium, or pay hefty fines. De Souza launched a full investigation, after concluding an initial probe into the signatories to the program. He cited evidence that the companies shared commercially sensitive data. Aprosoja Mato Grosso and other farm groups welcomed the suspension, claiming that the corporate agreement was unfair and kept some farmers from the market. However, the decision of the general superintendent was criticised by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, and Brazil's Environment Ministry. Abiove obtained a favorable decision from a federal court one week after CADE suspended the moratorium. A court granted an injunction against the suspension of the moratorium until CADE's tribunal renders a final decision on the appeal. (Reporting and Editing by Marguerita Chy)
-
UN chief says countries must move 'further and faster' to meet new climate targets
On Wednesday, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres called on all parties to the Paris Climate Agreement to develop new climate plans that would achieve greater and faster reductions in emissions than what they have already committed to. Guterres hosts a climate leaders' summit Wednesday on the sidelines the U.N. General Assembly. He has asked the countries to announce new climate targets in order to generate momentum for the global COP30 Climate Negotiations in November in Brazil. The summit takes place a day after U.S. president Donald Trump used the UNGA address to call climate change a "con-job" and to criticize countries such as EU member states and China who embrace renewable energy technologies. The United States, which is the world's largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases and the second-largest emitter after China, has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, a 10-year old climate pact aimed at preventing global temperatures from increasing beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius by means of national climate plans. Guterres stated in prepared remarks that the Paris Agreement had made a significant difference. He added that, since its adoption in 2015, global temperatures have dropped from 4 degrees C to 2,6 degrees C if national climate plans were fully implemented. He said, "We need to create new plans that will go further and faster in 2035." A document from the EU's negotiating team, seen by, showed that despite the deadline for Wednesday's climate summit, there was no agreement reached on a new U.N. mandated target. Instead, plans were drafted to present a temporary goal which may change in future. Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air reports that all eyes are on China. The country has pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2060. This would require roughly 30% reductions in emissions below the peak levels of 2024, by 2035. (Reporting and editing by Alistair Bell; Valerie Volcovici)
-
Denmark's Prime Minister apologizes personally to Greenland woman over forced contraception
The Danish Prime Minister apologized in person to women on Wednesday who had been victims of decades-long, involuntary contraception campaigns. These campaigns have left the islanders with deep wounds and damaged their relationship with their former colonial powers. Between 1966 and 1991 - the year Greenland gained control over its healthcare system - thousands of women and girls, some as young as 12, were fitted with intrauterine device without their consent or knowledge. Mette Frederiksen said, "I do not believe that we can achieve the equal and proper relationship many of us want unless we open even the darkest pages," at a Nuuk, Greenland, capital ceremony. The ceremony is another step in Denmark’s efforts to improve ties with Greenland, since U.S. president Donald Trump began to vow this year to seize control of the vast island rich in resources and located in the Arctic for security purposes. "The apology I offer today does not just concern the past. This apology is not only about the past, but also our present and future. Frederiksen spoke to victims who were wiping away tears. PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL SCARES A recent investigation revealed that 4 070 women were fitted with intrauterine device by the end 1970, or roughly every other Greenlandic woman of childbearing years. Many women have reported severe abdominal pain, and some have been unable to have children after the device has been removed. This is often due to severe infection. Receiving an apology doesn't mean we accept what happened. "We are here because we don't accept what happened," said Greenland Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen. He wore black. It is up to us all to take the next step. Naja Lyberth thanked Frederiksen's apology for creating a space for Greenlanders who shared the same trauma to process it. Lyberth, a 14-year-old girl who got her IUD at the age of 14, said that "the state has now stressed that we are equal spirits within the Danish realm." Reporting by Louise Rasmussen, Editing by Gareth Jones
-
Congo sticks to export quotas but wants to boost cobalt processing
The mining minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo said that the country will adhere to the recently announced cobalt export quotas. Any revisions in the future would only be possible if the government deems it necessary. In an interview conducted on the sidelines a New York seminar, the mining minister of Zambia, Louis Watum Kabamba said that his country was more interested in investing in cobalt processing locally to increase its export value. "We can't let others decide for us. It is not important whether there will be or won't be a cobalt stockpile. "The most important thing is to get a fair price," Watum stated after participating in the seminar hosted by the Cobalt Institute. Congo, which supplied 70% of the global cobalt demand in 2024 will replace a February export ban with a quota-based system starting October 16, to manage supply and influence prices. The Congo will allow miners to export up to 18,125 tonnes of cobalt in the remainder of 2025. This is followed by annual caps of 96.600 tons for 2026 and 2027. Glencore, the second largest producer in the world, is in favor of an export quota, while CMOC, China's top producer of key battery materials, is against it. The total quota does not match CMOC's capacity to produce. "We won't be controlled by China or anyone else but ourselves." Watum stated that a country that supplies 70% the cobalt in the world has a right to decide on price. He said that future revisions of the quota system are possible, but no date has been set. Watum said that the government would continue to take concessions away from companies who fail to develop assets.
-
Aurubis begins production in US copper recycling facility
Aurubis AG, Europe’s largest copper manufacturer, announced on Wednesday that it had begun production at its newly constructed U.S. Metal Recycling Plant at Richmond, Georgia. Aurubis stated that the plant would reduce the need for U.S. imports of metals. Production is expected to reach its full capacity by the first half 2026. The plant, which will invest about $800,000,000, will be able to process 180,000 tons of complex recycling waste material each year, including printed circuit board, copper cable, and other metal bearing products. The production will include 70,000 tonnes of high-grade blister-copper with a purity of 98-99%, as well as nickel, tin and precious metals. Aurubis' spokesperson stated that the company intended to sell copper to U.S.-based customers. This will allow us to meet the increasing demand for strategic metals like copper in the U.S. Copper demand in the U.S. is currently around 1.8 millions tons per year. Around half of this amount is imported. Aurubis stated that the Richmond plant would be an effective way to reduce copper imports. Aurubis Richmond's blister copper can be further processed in Europe into high purity copper and copper products by Aurubis international smelting networks. Aurubis CEO Toralf Haag stated that the company could consider additional projects in the United States. Haag stated, "With its high recycling materials and favorable local conditions, Aurubis offers attractive prospects on the American market that we will continue considering closely in the future." Michael Hogan is the reporter. Mark Potter (Editing)
-
Europe stocks fall; commodity and defence rallies offset luxury losses
Investors analyzed the latest signals from Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell as European stocks fell on Wednesday. The pan-European STOXX 600 ended 0.2% lower while regional bourses mixed. The French benchmark was the worst performer, falling 0.6%. Basic resource sector rose 1.8%, as copper prices reached a 15-month-high, and crude prices reached a three week-high, driving the energy sector to rise 1.5%. Anglo American surged by 4.7% following Endiama Bid for a Minority De Beers, the diamond mining unit of De Beers. Defense stocks rose between 3% to 8%, including Rheinmetall Hensoldt, and SAAB after U.S. president Donald Trump stated that he believes Ukraine can retake its occupied land by Russia, and that Kyiv must act immediately. STOXX600 gains were held back by losses in luxury stocks like LVMH Hermes Richemont EssilorLuxottica. The subindex of luxury stocks fell 1.5%. Healthcare stocks fell 0.6% with AstraZeneca, Roche and other heavyweights down by 2% and 0.4 respectively. Bloomberg News reported on August 1 that Washington has formalized the lower auto tariffs. Wall Street stocks fell as investors digested Powell's remarks which provided little clarity about the Fed's future interest rate policy. According to the CME FedWatch Tool, traders are betting that there will be at least one rate cut in this year. The odds of a move in October topping 94%. Last week, the Fed announced its first rate cut since 2025. This sparked a global rally that lifted European and U.S. stocks. But after a strong start to the year -- fueled by gains in defense stocks -- European shares have lost momentum, trailing their U.S. peers amid a relentless artificial-intelligence-driven rally that has pushed American benchmarks to record highs. The Fed could become more dovish at the December meeting, because restrictive monetary policies can worsen employment and inflation upside risks are not materializing. Elias Haddad is a senior market strategist with Brown Brothers Harriman. The STOXX 600 is about 2% below its peak in March, and has gained about 9.2% so far this year. The S&P 500 is up close to 13%. Lanxess' stock fell 6.6% when Deutsche Bank lowered its rating from "buy" to "hold". The German business mood showed a surprising decline in September, as the economy remained weak.
-
Gold falls from record high; markets watch US economic data
The gold price eased Wednesday, as the U.S. Dollar firmed. This was a retreat from the record high reached in the previous session. Investors remained glued to their screens, awaiting economic data that will be released later this week. These figures should provide further clues about the Federal Reserve’s policy direction. As of 11:53 am, spot gold was down 0.5% at $3,744.19 an ounce. After hitting a record-high of $3,790.82 in the early hours of ET (1553 GMT), gold prices fell 0.5% to $3,744.19 per ounce. U.S. Gold Futures for December Delivery declined 1% to $3.776.50. Dollar-priced gold is now more expensive to holders of other currencies due to the 0.6% increase in the U.S. Dollar index. The 10-year Treasury yields have also moved higher. Gold is still digesting the comments made yesterday by the Federal Reserve and the geopolitical tensions in Russia... "We're a little cautious before some economic data is released," said Phillip Streible. Chief market strategist at Blue Line Futures. Jerome Powell, Fed chair on Tuesday, did not offer any new clues about the future direction of interest rates. He stressed that the central banks must carefully balance risks of stubborn inflation with a slowing of the job market. According to CME FedWatch, the markets are pricing in an additional two 25-basis point rate cuts in this year. One is expected in October and has a 94% chance of happening. The other will happen in December. The focus is now on the weekly U.S. unemployment claims data due out Thursday and the U.S. employment report scheduled for Friday. The Fed's preferred inflation indicator is the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index. Ukraine's military announced on Wednesday that it had struck two oil pumps overnight in Russia's Volgograd Region. Gold becomes more appealing during times of geopolitical or economic uncertainty. Gold is also a non-yielding investment, so it tends to do well in low interest rate environments. Spot silver dropped 0.3% per ounce to $43.89 Palladium fell by 0.2% and platinum dropped 0.5%. (Reporting from Noel John, Bengaluru. Additional reporting by Kavya Baliaraman. Editing by Shilpa Majumdar and Shalpa Kuber.
-
California Attorney General Bonta: More Trump and plastics lawsuits are coming, says Bonta
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced on Wednesday that his state will continue to sue Trump's administration for its aggressive deregulatory measures on environmental regulations. He also said he was looking into more lawsuits related to deception surrounding plastics recycling. Bonta said, "Every time they break the law, it hurts my state and my people. We will sue, we'll take them to court." "So far, that's been more than one per week." He said that "we definitely have more suits planned". California's strategy is to counteract the administration's rapid rollbacks in environmental policies and its push to expand fossil-fuels. In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Donald Trump, the U.S. president, dismissed climate change on Tuesday as "the biggest con job in the history of mankind". He reaffirmed his doubts about mainstream climate science, and his opposition to the use of renewable energy. Bonta said in an interview that he was looking at "the many actions" that were being taken in order to adopt this pro fossil fuel 'head in the sand' approach when it comes climate change and climate sciences, a position which results in a number of rollbacks to positions that the Biden Administration held that he believed to be sound. This includes focusing on potential violations by federal agencies of the Administrative Procedures Act. Bonta led a coalition earlier this week of 23 attorneys general, seven counties, and cities to sign a letter in opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal that it revoke its 2009 findings on greenhouse gas emissions. This finding was the foundation of federal regulations regarding greenhouse gases. The public comment period ended on Monday, and the EPA may issue a final regulation later this year. This could open the agency to lawsuits. Bonta responded that his office would weigh the risks. When asked if California would sue over the rescission knowing the case could be heard by the Supreme Court which, in recent years, has favored the Trump Administration on environmental cases of major importance, Bonta replied that they will consider the risk. If the Supreme Court affirms the rescission it may make it more difficult for future administrations to adopt a new finding of endangerment. "We want stop illegal actions that we believe we have a good chance to stop, based on facts and law." He said that sometimes that means going to federal courts, and that there is a possibility of us proceeding to the intermediate appellate court or US Supreme Court. EXXON JUDGEMENT DATE Bonta said that the state would continue to focus its attention on major fossil-fuel companies and will bring more lawsuits relating to plastic recycling. Bonta, a U.S.-based oil company, sued ExxonMobil in September 2024 for what he claimed was a decade-long campaign of deception to mislead consumers about the recycling of plastic products. He also claimed that the reality is that only a small amount of plastic waste produced in the U.S. is recycled. Exxon sued Bonta in January for defaming the company and its advanced plastic recycling programs. They also claimed that he was connected to a competitor. Bonta believes that Exxon is trying to delay the "judgement date" of the legal process. He said, "We have a lot behind us in terms of investigative material." "We believe it is very strong, and we are confident that we will prevail." Bonta refused to comment on whether settlement talks were underway in either case. Exxon did not respond to a request for comment. PROCESSED FOODS Bonta's office also cited ultra-processed food, which has been under fire recently over allegations that many popular packaged foods have been engineered for addiction, as a "issue of great importance" but declined to make any comments on any ongoing investigations. Researchers consider many packaged snacks, sweets, and soft drinks that contain substances synthesized or extracted from whole food sources to be ultra-processed. Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the Health Secretary, has targeted these products as contributing to childhood obesity and health problems. Bonta stated that "Ultra processed foods are a serious problem." Bonta said, "But there's really good science behind this. That's where we begin, with facts and science, and then go from there."
Was the US attack on the Venezuelan ship legal?
On Tuesday, the U.S. Military killed 11 people on a vessel that was in the Caribbean. President Donald Trump claimed that the vessel carried illegal drugs and belonged to the drug cartel that he had designated as a terrorist group responsible for killings in the United States.
Here is an overview of the legal basis for the attack.
PRESIDENTIAL POWER OF USE OF MILITARY
According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare a war, but it is the president who is in charge of the armed services. Presidents from both parties have carried out military operations overseas without the approval of Congress.
According to a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel that provides advice to Presidents, presidents have justified limited military force when it was in national interest and wasn't restricted or war-like.
WAS THE ATTACK PERMITTED BY US LAW
Presidents generally order attacks against enemy combatants or terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, or militants like the Houthis, who attacked U.S. ships in Yemen.
The use of military forces in Tuesday's assault is a first. Trump claimed in a post on social media that the boat was carrying illegal drugs, and it would be the U.S. Coast Guard's responsibility to intercept them. Legal experts say that if the Coast Guard was fired on when they tried to stop the boat, then the Coast Guard would have been justified in defending itself.
Trump, however, posted on social media a video that appeared to show an air strike destroying a boat speeding by.
The administration failed to provide evidence that the United States were under imminent attack. It did not indicate that the vessel was armed, and it did not identify the targets aboard the boat that would be critical in a terror attack. Previous presidents did this when similar attacks occurred. Trump's claim that the Tren de Aragua cartel was operating the boat does not mean the drug cartel is at war with America in the same manner as other terror organizations, such as al Qaeda.
Legal experts say that many people will see the attack as extrajudicial murder because the victims on the boat are civilians.
What about international law?
In order to achieve international peace and stability, the Charter of the United Nations requires that members refrain from using or threatening force against other nations. The charter recognizes that member states have a right to self-defense.
Trump claimed that Tren de Aragua, Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro's Tren de Aragua, was under his control.
Legal experts say that this does not meet international law if there is no evidence of a future attack or previous attacks by Tren de Aragua.
Venezuelan officials also denied that the group was active in their country. International law is still arguing over the right to self-defense when it comes to non-state actors.
Officials in the Trump administration said that the vessel was located in international waters. However, if the vessel had been flagged by a country then the attack would have been considered to have taken place on its territory. This would be a major escalation. Officials from the administration have not confirmed if this vessel is flagged.
Who can challenge the legality of an attack?
Some opponents may not challenge the attack, given that Venezuela's government and Tren de aragua have been declared international pariahs. Pentagon officials said that this could change if there are more attacks.
The legal challenges to the authority of the president to execute the strike in the U.S. courts will probably face high hurdles. U.S. court generally defers to the president in matters of foreign affairs and security.
Families of victims could bring civil lawsuits in the United States for damages, but it would take years and be very expensive. Legally, such attacks carry the risk that the administration may kill an American. Anwar al Awlaki was a U.S. born al Qaeda militant. The Obama administration claimed it had the right to kill him because he posed a continuing imminent threat. U.S. lawsuits were filed after the deadly drone strike. The attack can be challenged before an international tribunal such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This has led some countries to acknowledge past abuses, even though the United States was not a member of the court.
Legal experts say that while the attack may not result in successful legal challenges, Washington's international relations could be soured and it would become more difficult to work with other countries to implement drug and immigration policies.
(source: Reuters)