11/03/2018

Slavery & Human Trafficking Booming Thanks To Climate Change Induced Migrations

CleanTechnica - 

Over the coming century, large portions of the most densely inhabited parts of the world will become essentially incapable of supporting human populations above very limited nomadic levels. The people living in these regions will be left with a simple choice: migrate or die.
While the current refugee crisis is certainly not a trivial matter for those most involved with it, the reality is that it represents just a trickle compared to what’s now slated to occur — owing to the greenhouse gases already released into the atmosphere to date, and also due to the widespread deforestation and topsoil erosion/exploitation that has accompanied that.
As it stands, most refugees are by and large either: people coming from war zones with enough money available to them to arrange for possible transit to safer areas; or economic migrants on the other (mostly young males coming from regions where there isn’t enough work). As the century grinds on, the “refugees” will very likely be originating more and more with the rougher portions of the societies in question (those with military or police backgrounds, etc.).


For the time being, though, most of those that are actually coming from war zones (rather than simply from economically depressed regions) are from the “middle” or “upper” classes, relatively speaking. As such, they often make easy prey for human traffickers — with a great many inevitably being sold into slavery. This is especially true of unaccompanied minors.
Estimates from the European Union’s criminal intelligence agency Europol place the number of lone migrant children that have gone missing in Europe since arrival over the last few years at +10,000. It’s no real mystery what happens to these children, though, as it’s an open secret that some of the wealthiest countries in Europe are also some of the global hot spots when it comes the slavery of foreign women and children in sex work.
The point that’s being made here is that as refugee movement and mass migrations pick up over the coming decades, human slavery is slated to continue growing as a problem … with it already being the case that criminal gangs seem to be benefiting to a large degree from the growing ease at which trafficking can occur. As it stands, it’s estimated that some 40 million people are living as slaves worldwide.


On that subject, the prominent Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi recently made some interesting comments as part of a workshop in Jordan put together by the Thomson Reuters Foundation. The comments seem worth discussing here.
One of the primary points that Satyarthi made in his comments was that the refugee crisis was greatly worsening the problem of human trafficking and slavery, by making it clear to criminal gangs how profitable such activities can be. It’s now estimated, according to Satyarthi, that organized gangs now profit from slavery to the tune of an estimated $150 billion a year.
“This refugee crisis has resulted in trafficking and slavery,” stated Satyarthi, the joint-winner of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize with Pakistan’s Malala Yousafzai, due to his work fighting child labor.
“Human trafficking, small firearms, and drugs are the 3 most organized crimes. Now they are intermingled,” he stated at the aforementioned workshop.
Reuters provides more: “India is home to more slaves than any other nation — previous global estimates put the number at 18 million — with men, women, and children trapped in forced labor and sex work. … Satyarthi said he had heard reports of Syrian refugees agreeing to child marriages for their daughters to stop them from being sold into the sex trade or other forms of slavery.
“He will meet with leaders from Jordan’s King Abdullah to Panama’s Juan Carlos Varela and various Nobel laureates and activists this month to address challenges facing children on the move, such as migrants, refugees, and trafficking victims. … Satyarthi said India’s first anti-trafficking law, which may be passed this month after being approved by cabinet last week, was a major step forward with life sentences for traffickers and a rehabilitation fund to help victims rebuild their lives.”
Obviously, while all such efforts are commendable, they aren’t enough on their own. As Satyarthi noted while speaking specifically about the situation in India: “The caste system, gender discrimination, and the apathetic attitude of government officials and corruption are the biggest hurdles.”
The situation isn’t much different elsewhere of course, though divisions always vary by region based along different ethnic, religious, identity, etc., lines.
The reason that I chose to highlight this subject is because discussions about these matters — slavery, the refugee crisis, future mass migrations, etc. — usually seem to devolve to pre-staked out positions and mischaracterization of the motives of others.

An Even-Handed Overview Of The Current Refugee Crisis & Future Mass Migrations
So, to offer a condensed view of the situation here, to those who aren’t too partisan to hear it … based on decades of international travel, related work, and an extensive reading of history:
  • Current refugee flows comprise a mix of: genuine refugees coming from war zones; economic migrants; and those being trafficked into slavery of various types.
  • The motivations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel — with regard to the supposedly humanitarian gesture of inviting large numbers of refugees into Europe — likely stemmed from a mixture of: the expectation that such people could make up part of the economic underclass of Germany (which Turks who were let in many decades ago still comprise a large part of), thereby helping to curtail the effects of an aging workforce; and virtue signaling to the international community.
  • Truly “humanitarian” actions depend, as all other effective actions do as well, on an honest appraisal of a situation. No one who has spent much time in Germany (or Northern Europe) as a foreigner is likely to have any real illusions about the openness of the society — bringing in large numbers of people from outside of these societies was never going to lead to anything but mass-projection, conflict, scapegoating, and the balkanization of society. Putting people in such a situation is not “helping them.”
  • While climate change — through the effects of droughts, water scarcity, declining crop yields, and accompanying conflict and societal breakdown — certainly represents one of the broader causes behind the current refugee flows, there is no doubt that the extensive bombing of the regions in question by foreign powers (the US and European powers primarily) is a more immediate cause. Bombing people’s countries out of existence isn’t helping them.
  • To put that another way, when one country imposes its own cultural and political institutions on another in the name of idealistic universalism, which is often accomplished through wars or proxy wars (ahem…), what often enough results is a failed state.
  • Much of Southern Europe is itself slated to experience desertification and rapidly increasing water stress and falling crop yields within just the next 50–100 years. In other words, mass migrations out of Southern Europe and into northern territories is pretty much a given at this point — those coming from the Near East, the Middle East, and Africa are mistaken if they think that they are going to find long-term stability in Southern Europe.
  • There are substantial cultural differences between the societies of Northern Europe and Southern Europe (to greatly oversimplify the divisions) — and accompanying widespread stereotyping, projection, and scapegoating. This will only worsen as time goes by and climate weirding and warming intensifies — which will occur at the same time that global geopolitical power is shifting to Asia and away from Europe, which will intensify the cultural conflicts in question.
  • The lifestyles that those in Europe have become accustomed to over recent history are an aberration, which was only possible because of fossil fuels and colonialism. As the effects of those two factors continue to diminish (as high-grade fossil fuel reserves in Europe continue to deplete, and as the “third world” grows in influence), much of the population will be forced to accept a “lower” standard of living. That is, a standard of living that’s less of an outlier from the global average. The general public will not comprehend why this is happening, and will demand that someone or some group of people be to blame. That being the case, the idea that large numbers of refugees can be accommodated isn’t credible.
Links

Apparently We Can Let The Stock Market Fight Climate Change

Wired

Hotlittlepotato
Fixing the effects of climate change on Earth isn’t complicated. When you get down to it, all we humans need to save the world is ingenuity, grit, cooperation, and $53 trillion.
Where is humanity supposed to come up with that kind of cash at this time of night? The International Energy Agency says Earth needs those trillions invested in energy supply and efficiency by 2035 to keep global warming below 2 degrees C. So, you could tax greenhouse gas emitters until they cry—oh, sorry, I probably meant to say “price carbon according to its real market cost.” But also, go to where the big money is—statewide or national funds, piles of assets emblazoned with names like BlackRock and Fidelity, and other institutional investors. Convince them to stop investing in carbon emitters and start investing in... anything but them.
Except, whoa there, li’l Communist, because the people who run those funds are bound by a fiduciary duty to act in the financial interests of their clients. Which is to say, legally and regulatorily, they can’t not make money—at least, not on purpose. And if you compare an asset portfolio optimized for “make all the money” to one optimized for “make all the money except if it emits carbon,” guess which one wins? “So how can we move the majority of investors to integrate environmental factors into their thinking?” asks Soh Young In, an engineering doctoral student at the Global Projects Center at Stanford. “That’s the problem. They think that environmental factors are a suboptimal decision.” In a new working paper, In and her fellow researchers hope to convince those skeptical investors otherwise.
Finance researchers and analysts have been chewing on this problem for years—how (and whether) to integrate environment, social, and governance factors, or ESG, into investment planning. Stipulate that the right-thinking humans who work in finance know climate change is an existential threat; what they don’t know is how to put that knowledge to work without sacrificing money. So lots of folks have tried to show that taking ESG into account can increase investment returns (as well as, like, save the planet or whatever).
Research into the “G” part has shown that, yes, companies that perform well on metrics for corporate governance—essentially how well a company is run—have also performed better on the market. “S” looks pretty good, too, if you look at how happy workers are. Companies with higher worker satisfaction have also done better. It’s hard to tell if those trends will continue, but at least retrospectively, it’s good stuff.
But what about the E? “The E, the jury is still out on,” says Adair Morse, a finance professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. In part, the problem may be a lack of data. Despite various projects to mandate environmental disclosures and to try to collate that data into useful metrics, those metrics are still hard to come by. Determinations of what constitutes fiduciary duty have been a decades-long process.
People touting ESG ideas argue they can have as much of an impact on bottom lines as supply chains, market size, raw material availability, and all the other stuff finance people worry about. “This movement said, look, these things are relevant for shareholders and pricing,” Morse says. “So shouldn’t we have information that’s material in the ESG factors? Shouldn’t they be disclosed?”
When they are, investors have something to act on—like Moneyball, but for money. “Portfolio managers tend to be quantitatively focused. They’re used to relying on a suite of financial data about companies and asset classes that appear on the Bloomberg terminal,” says Chris Davis, senior director of the Ceres Investor Network, a group of 150 pension funds and asset managers collectively responsible for $27 trillion. (See? I told you somebody had the money.) And Bloomberg data, for example, does indeed now include ESG metrics.
That swings us back around to In’s research. To be clear, it’s a working paper, not peer reviewed—intended, as she says, to be the beginning of a discussion and not the end. What her team brings to bear is access to a database from a company called Trucost. Established in 2000 to develop those quantitative metrics, Trucost has been tracking carbon emissions since the middle of the last decade—and not just a company’s emissions at the end of its line, but all up and down the value chain, from raw materials to transportation to the places that cough out the widgets.
So this is pretty slick, actually. In’s group took a firm’s Trucost carbon emission data and then divided it by the firm’s revenues to come up with a metric they call “carbon efficiency.” Then they used those numbers to build carbon-efficient and carbon-inefficient portfolios, and compared their returns. “It’s an investment strategy,” In says. “You’re shorting your carbon-inefficient firm stocks and longing your carbon-efficient firm stocks.”
Whoo, did that ever work. Depending on how they constructed the portfolio, from 2009 to 2015 profits ranged from 3.5 to 5.4 percent over what you’d expect from similar levels of risk, ignoring carbon. And according to their analyses, the numbers held even when they controlled for other things that often drive profits—size, value, momentum, and so on.
“So we can say we’re getting alpha on our portfolio. But we want to know why this is happening,” In says. More variables, more regression analyses. “What we find is, carbon-efficient firms tend to be good firms in terms of financial performance and corporate governance.” In other words, low-carbon firms tend to be good at other stuff, too. That’s a correlation, not a causation, but it’s also a rational, fiduciarily responsible way to build a portfolio.
'It’s an investment strategy. You’re shorting your carbon-inefficient firm stocks and longing your carbon-efficient firm stocks.'
Soh Young In, Global Projects Center, Stanford University
This is good news! “From casual conversations with investors managing institutional portfolios, they were very happy to see this kind of academic research,” In says. They’re looking for ways to see so-called green investing as within the scope of their duty. “If they want to change their portfolios, they need to have objective evidence.”
In the case of In’s working paper, that’s evidence added to a growing canon. “There are leaders and there are laggards. In our investor network, many if not most of the members, particularly the pension funds, take climate risk very seriously,” Davis says. “A number of them have done quite a bit already in reducing the carbon footprint of their portfolios and investing affirmatively in solutions.”
For example, the $209 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund audited its portfolio’s carbon footprint, says Davis, and then had the investment bank Goldman Sachs build a bespoke low-carbon index ...and put $4 billion into a fund based on it. The California State Teachers’ Retirement System put $2.5 billion into its own low-carbon index fund. The next step: “Get some quantitative criteria that can be used in risk models,” says Davis. “There’s a lot of research going on with the likes of BlackRock and State Street to try to figure out just that.”
'Most of the markets of the world are far more comfortable with where the investment risks and opportunities are going to come from.'
Nathan Fabian, Principles for Responsible Investment
The research comes in the nick of time, if not slightly after. Not everyone thinks fiduciary duty and lack of metrics are as much of an obstacle as US investors seem to. “That data’s not perfect, but there’s sufficient data to know what the emissions profile of fossil fuel assets is, and there’s sufficient data to know what the storm risk for infrastructure and physical assets is,” says Nathan Fabian, director of policy and research for Principles for Responsible Investment. “It might take a bit more effort than simply using the portfolio return numbers or company earnings numbers you’ve used for the last decade, but the truth is, all the risk is in front of us, not behind us.”
The 1,700 signatories to PRI’s standards for ESG-based investing collectively manage $62 trillion. That’s a lot of oomph if someone could point it in the right direction. And in lots of places, people are. “The truth is, most of the markets of the world are just far more comfortable with where the investment risks and opportunities are going to come from than US regulators and the US financial sector,” Fabian says. “That’s a real competitive issue for the US over time.”
This week, Fabian says, the European Union plans to update rules to clarify how fiduciary duty can incorporate environmental, social, and governmental issues. The Chinese government is setting its financial system up to encourage green financing. “You’ve got Europe moving aggressively, China moving aggressively, and the Californians trying quite hard. But really there’s a drag on the US economy,” Fabian says.
The In team’s working paper doesn’t solve that problem. The relatively short timeframe of the Trucost database, for example, makes for a bit of a frowny face; her group hasn’t yet gotten all the data for 2016 to see if the trend continues. And the correlation between carbon efficiency and governance and performance means you have to ask what’s actually driving that performance—governance, revenues, or carbon? But something has to convince firms to get on board a transnational movement. The journey of $53 trillion must begin with a single step.


Politician and activist Al Gore answers the Internet's most searched questions about climate change.

Links

Scientists Have Issued A Warning To Humanity, And It's Finally Getting A Huge Reaction

ScienceAlertMike McRae

Now is the time to act.
(joruba/istock)
It's been just over 25 years since 1,700 leading scientists from around the globe put their names to a document warning of a 'collision course' between humanity and the rest of the natural world.
Last year, a follow-up report was signed by more than 15,000 researchers from 184 nations. Needless to say, it wasn't exactly glowing. So much so, several months later it's still one of the most talked-about research papers in the world.
In 1992, a group of Nobel Laureates teamed up with other researchers to form the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their tagline was "science for a healthy planet and a safer world."
This union outlined the biggest environmental threats faced by our population in a report titled World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, ending it with a powerfully written call to action.
What's happened in the quarter of a century since? Not a whole lot, it seems.
The 1992 report was followed up in November last year with a paper in the journal Bioscience called "World scientists' warning to humanity: A second notice".
In what amounts to a report card you wouldn't proudly stick on the fridge, we earned one gold star for taking care of that thin patch of ozone over Antarctica ... and not much else.
So it's time for another wake-up call.
"Humanity is now being given a second notice, as illustrated by these alarming trends," the report states.
Before you think it was just a few alarmists waving their hands wildly, the article has been trending in scientist circles ever since, seeing it co-signed by a record-breaking 15,364 names from 184 countries.
If that's not impressive enough, it currently ranks 6th out of 9 million papers on the Altmetric scale, and has even inspired some high-level speeches before Israel's national assembly and Canada's BC Legislature.
"Our scientists' warning to humanity has clearly struck a chord with both the global scientific community and the public," says the paper's lead author, William Ripple from Oregon State University.
Responses to the document are also coming in thick and fast.
One paper by the University of Sydney recently published in Bioscience emphasises the need to take economics into account when guiding action.
"There are critical environmental limits to resource-dependent economic growth," the authors write.
The researchers propose two key actions that are necessary for us to turn things around.
Firstly, in awarding prizes for influential work in economics, we must acknowledge the limits of the biosphere and other environmental factors.
Secondly, carbon pricing must be expanded from its current application in some 42 countries and 25 states into a globalised system.
Economics is clearly a critical factor in our impact on the environment, and any action we take must take into account such driving factors behind our 'collision course'.
The Second Notice ends with an equally powerful call for change. "We must recognise, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home," the authors write.
Whether we'll see a third notice in 2042 or not is anybody's guess.
If we do more than just talk about the first two, we might have something we'll proudly stick on the fridge.

Links