Although several international bodies link migration and the climate crisis, the concept of climate migrant or refugee does not exist in the international legal framework. Driven out by poverty, lack of basic services, violence and climate-related phenomena, millions of people leave their countries in Central America every year, heading mainly to the United States, to find work and to reunite with family.

But in the face of the increasing crackdown on immigration in the U.S. since 2016 under the administrations of Donald Trump (2016-January 2021) and current President Joe Biden, many undocumented migrants have opted to stay in places that were previously only transit points, such as Mexico.

The problem is that Mexico also tightened the screws, as part of the role it agreed with the U.S. to perform during the times of Trump, who successfully pressured the governments of Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-December 2018) and current President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to step up their own anti-immigration measures. And this has not changed since Biden took office. As Mexico has become a magnet for migration, measures against immigration have been stiffened. This year, through August alone, immigration authorities detained 148,903 people, almost twice as many as in all of 2020, when the total was 82,379. Of the current total, according to official data, 67,847 came from Honduras, 44,712 from Guatemala, 12,010 from El Salvador and 7,172 from Haiti. Deportations are also on the rise, as up to August, Mexico removed 65,799 undocumented migrants, compared to 60,315 in the whole of 2020. Of these, 25,660 were from Honduras, 25,660 from Guatemala, 2,583 from El Salvador and 223 from Haiti. In Mexico, according to official figures refugee applications increased from 70,406 in all of 2019 to 90,314 this year up to and including September, of which 26,007 were filed by Haitian migrants. Migrants from Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, El Salvador, and Venezuela account for the largest number of applications. Despite the large rise in applications, Mexico only approved 13,100 permanent refugees in September: 5,755 from Honduras, 1,454 from El Salvador, 733 from Haiti and 524 from Guatemala.

Like the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico and the so-called Northern Triangle of Central America (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador) are highly vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis. Drought and devastating hurricanes drive people from their homes to safer areas or across borders in search of better lives.

Honduras is one illustration of this phenomenon. Since 1970, more than 30 major tropical storms have hit the country, leaving a trail of deaths and billions of dollars in property damage. Hurricanes Eta and Iota struck in 2020. For this year, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) predicted 17 hurricanes on the Atlantic side before the official end of hurricane season on Nov. 30.

In early September, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández also declared a drought emergency, another increasingly recurrent and intense phenomenon in Central America.

Caribbean island nations such as Haiti are also suffering from climate emergencies. The country was hit by Hurricane Elsa in June and by Tropical Storm Fred and Hurricane Grace in August, on top of an Aug. 14 earthquake measuring 7.2 on the Richter scale that claimed thousands of lives.

In 2017, a particularly lethal year, hurricanes Harvey and Irma struck Haiti. As a result, Sadaam decided to leave, heading first to Chile that year and now to Mexico, where he has applied for humanitarian asylum.

Recent studies and migration statistics show that the paths followed by migrants and climate disasters in the region are intertwined.

Between 2000 and 2019, Cuba, Mexico and Haiti were the hardest hit, by a total of 110 storms which caused 39 billion dollars in damage, affected 29 million people and left 5,000 dead, 85 percent of them in Haiti, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

In 2020, internal and external displacement due to disasters soared in El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. But the international migratory framework has not yet accepted the official category of climate refugee, despite growing clamor for its inclusion.

Armelle Gouritin, an academic at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences-Mexico, told IPS that the scientific community has linked the sudden events to the climate emergency, whose influence on internal and external migration flows is growing.

“There is evidence that they are increasing. It is quite difficult to say to what extent the volume of migration is growing, because there is little quantitative data. It is hard to compare. It tends to be invisible, especially because of slow onset processes such as drought and desertification,” she explained.

In her 2021 book “The protection of internal climate migrants; a pending task in Mexico”, the expert described scenarios linked to migration, such as gradual-onset phenomena, sudden-onset disasters (hurricanes or violence generated by water shortages), relocations decided by the authorities, sea level rise and the impact of renewable energy megaprojects.

The World Bank study “Groundswell: Acting on Internal Climate Migration” warns that Mexico must prepare for the confluence of climate disasters and migration flows, and projects 17 million internal climate migrants in Latin America. The report,  estimates that the number of climate migrants will grow between 2020 and 2050, when between 1.4 and 2.1 million people will migrate in Mexico and Central America. Mexico’s central valley, where the capital city is located, and the western highlands of Guatemala will receive migrants, while people will flee arid, agricultural and low-lying coastal areas.

Few countries are prepared to address the climate dimension of migration, as is the case of Mexico. The general laws on Climate Change, of 2012, and on Forced Internal Displacement, of 2020, mention climate impacts but do not include measures or define people internally displaced by climate phenomena. In the United States, undocumented Mexicans are experiencing the same thing, as deportations of Mexicans could well exceed the levels of all of 2020, since 184,402 people were deported that year compared to 148,584 as of last August alone.

 Detentions, deportations and refugee applications, migration will continue, as long as droughts, floods and storms devastate their places of origin.

Climate Crisis Fuels Exodus to Mexico, Both Waystation and Destination | Inter Press Service (ipsnews.net)

 In its annual report on violence against the descendants of Brazil’s original inhabitants, the Catholic Church’s Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI) said there were 182 murders of Indigenous people in 2020, compared with 113 murders in 2019, a 61 percent increase as land invasions of Indigenous territories increased and the government failed to provide protection.

There were 263 reported land invasions of Indigenous territories, CIMI said, an “alarming” increase of 137 percent over the previous year. Of 1,289 reservations in Brazil, 832 are waiting for official recognition.

The report blamed the government of far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for failing to protect Indigenous communities, while pushing legislation that would open their reservations to commercial mining, oil and gas exploration and the building of hydroelectric dams. Last year, Bolsonaro’s government saw “the deepening of an extremely worrying scenario in terms of Indigenous rights, territories and lives,” the report said. Bolsonaro has emboldened illegal miners, squatters, and loggers, whose invasions of reservation territories have exacerbated the spread of the coronavirus.

The Brazilian president recently visited an Indigenous territory and defended illegal mining which has an “enormous impact on the environment and Indigenous people”, Cesar Munoz, Americas senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, said Thursday on Twitter.

Bolsonaro has previously praised US army cavalry colonel George Armstrong Custer for clearing Indigenous people from the plains of North America.

He has also criticised reservations for occupying valuable land and has said he will not grant another inch of land claimed by Indigenous communities. He is backed by powerful farm interests, as part of a group of lawmakers known informally in Brazil as the “beef, Bibles and bullets” bloc.

Violence targeting Indigenous people surges 61 percent in Brazil | Indigenous Rights News | Al Jazeera

 Angus Taylor, Australia’s emissions reduction minister has declared he will use the COP26 climate summit to promote Australia as a good place to invest in fossil fuel projects.

The emissions reduction minister said on Thursday that Australia was a “safe and reliable destination to invest in gas, hydrogen and new energy technologies”.

It followed his announcement that the Morrison government had rejected a call to join a US and European-led pledge to cut emissions of methane – a potent greenhouse gas released during gas and coal extraction and by livestock – by 30% by 2030.

Angus Taylor to promote fossil fuels at Glasgow Cop26 climate summit | Australian politics | The Guardian

With COP26 almost upon us, will it solve the climate crises we face?

The most serious problems facing society today is that of its ecological damage and harm. The list of bad news on the environment is seemingly unending. Each of these issues represents a serious menace in its own right. Decisive action against carbon emissions and global warming is long overdue. The laws that have been enacted and regulatory agencies that have been established have at every turn been subverted by the very corporations and businesses responsible for the CO2 pollution. The regulations themselves have been watered down; agencies aren’t funded adequately to act on them and are frequently corrupted by corporate interests; enforcement of even inadequate regulations has been poor, raising the question of whether the laws and regulations were ever intended to be anything more than window dressing by the class of capitalists that owns the fossil fuel industries. To understand why legislation hasn’t worked and what kind of action will work to end this worsening environmental nightmare, it must be understood that the environmental crisis lies in the nature of the capitalist economic system. Capitalist-class rule over the economy explains why government regulation is so ineffective: under capitalism, the government itself is essentially a tool of the capitalist class. Politicians may be elected “democratically,” but because they are financed, supported and decisively influenced by the economic power of the capitalist class, democratic forms are reduced to a farce.

 Attempts under this system to solve our climate emergency with techno-fixes often create new problems. It will take a fundamentally different type of social and economic system to even begin to rationally address the problem — a socialist society, freed from what Marx once referred to as “the furies of private interest” that now control technology and its application. Endangering the air, the soil and the water, putting our children and future generations at risk and making land unfit for farming and habitation are evidently less important to governments than saving a large capitalist enterprise the trouble of cleaning up its mess properly. As always, the moneyed interests come first, and people last. It seems all too obvious that every move ruling classes make is calculated to increase their profits or consolidate their power over the peoples and the countries they control. The cleanup of polluted waters, the reclamation of wetlands, and the restoration of the natural environment generally will have to wait for the advent of socialism. That is the only sane, logical and practical way to eliminate all such unnatural disasters because it is the only way to take control of the economy away from impervious and brutish ruling classes and place it under the direct control of society as a whole. Because of capitalism and the insane motivation on the part of the capitalists to keep initial investment to a minimum to make the most profit, especially near-term profit people are exposed to toxic surroundings.

Hurting the environment is not an inevitable by-product of modern industry. Methods exist or can readily be developed to safely neutralise, recycle or contain most industrial wastes. Less polluting forms of transportation and energy can be built. Adequate supplies of food can be grown without deadly pesticides. The problem is that, under capitalism, the majority of people have no power to make these kinds of decisions about production. Under the capitalist system, production decisions are made by the small, wealthy minority that owns and controls the industries and services — the capitalist class. And the capitalists who make up that class make their decisions to serve, first and foremost, one goal — that of maximising profit for themselves. That is where the environmental crisis begins. Socially harmful decisions are made because, in one way or another, they serve the profit interests of the capitalist class. The capitalist class and its government will never be able to solve the environmental crisis. They and their system are the problems.

The action workers must take is to understand their economic and political power as operators of the industries and services by building and integrating into ONE MOVEMENT with the goal of building a new society with completely different motives for production — human needs and wants instead of profit — and to organise their own political party to challenge the political power of the capitalists, express their mandate for change at the ballot box and dismantle the state altogether. The new society they must aim for must be one in which society itself, not a wealthy few, would own the industries and services, and the workers themselves would control them democratically through their own organisations. In such a society, working people themselves would make the major decisions controlling the economy, electing representatives to various committees, councils and congresses that would administer the economy. Such a society — a socialist industrial democracy — is what is needed to solve the environmental crisis, by placing the economic decision-making power of the nation in the hands of the workers, by eliminating capitalist control and the profit motive in favour of a system in which workers produce to meet their own needs and wants, the necessary resources and labour could be devoted to stopping climate change at its source and better clean up the damage already done.

What is to prevent the workers in socialism from polluting the environment just like the capitalists? Socialism would place a priority upon protecting nature because the totality of the social interest would determine production decisions, not the narrow, material self-interest of a minority of society that is driven by competition.  Material self-interest compels capitalists to maximise profits, to the detriment of the social interest – not simply because they personally desire ever greater wealth, but because competition constantly threatens to eject them from their seat of privilege. The occasional capitalist or CEO who attempts to act in a benevolent manner generally doesn’t last too long, as the company in question will fall behind its competitors if it spends significantly less on improved productivity, to remain competitive. Accordingly, except in cases where a pollution control measure substantially improves productivity or otherwise promises a substantial increase in profits, capitalists are virtually driven to use the least expensive method of waste disposal – spewing it into the air, water or land.

Simply dumping wastes into the environment would still be less “expensive” — in terms of the labour-time necessary to dispose of them — in a socialist society. But in the cooperative-based economy of socialism, the compelling anti–social force of competition would be absent. Moreover, with the end of exploitation, workers would be able to satisfy all of their material needs with but a fraction of the present work–week. And with employment opportunities and economic security guaranteed to all, no worker would have to fear the economic consequences of a particular workplace or area of production being shut down due to environmental considerations.

With their basic material needs so readily and assuredly met, the liberated people of a socialist society will have every incentive to devote a considerable quantity of labour time to improving the quality of life in other ways. Certainly, the desire to live in a clean, healthy, spacious and aesthetically pleasing environment, and an appreciation for the wonders and beauty of wilderness environments, are fairly universal among humankind.

There is a collective self-interest in breathing clean air, drinking clean water, eating clean food, living a long, healthy life and enjoying both the scientific and aesthetic bounty of nature, it is safe to predict that workers would vote to allocate the energy necessary to virtually eliminate pollution at the point of production.

Thus, while in an abstract sense it is true that the self-governing producers of a socialist society could democratically decide to continue polluting the environment, it would defy all reason and human nature to project such a decision. It is no more valid or credible a supposition than supposing that everyone under socialism could decide to burn down their own home or commit suicide someday.

 Under capitalism, the profit motive and competition form a systematic barrier against the protection and restoration of the environment. In a socialist society, that barrier will be destroyed and humankind’s common needs and wants will guide economic decision-making. Since those needs and wants include a clean and healthy environment, a socialist society will take the steps needed to create one.

 The number dying of the infection rose for the first time in 10 years. In 2020, 1.5 million were killed by TB and 10 million infected. 

Public health campaigners want funding of  $1bn (£730m) every year into vaccine research. It has never exceeded more than $120m (£87m) in a year.

Earlier this month, the WHO warned that the pandemic had reversed progress against TB and fewer people were being diagnosed and treated as resources went to tackling Covid-19. Global funding for TB fell by £500m from 2019 to 2020.

Mike Frick, co-director of the TB project at Treatment Action Group, said: “Governments cumulatively spent $104bn on research and development of Covid-19 vaccine and therapeutics in the first 11 months of the pandemic. That is 75 times more than the money governments and other funders spent on TB vaccine research over the 11 years from 2005 to 2019. Despite high mortality rates, the only existing vaccine is the 100-year-old BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) vaccine, which is less effective for adults and older teenagers.

“This disparity signals a clear abdication of responsibility on the part of governments to protect the human rights of people with TB to health and scientific progress. It is past time that we as a TB community start expecting – and demanding – more.”

Early diagnosis of TB is crucial because undetected cases increase the risk of the disease spreading. A person can be infected by inhaling a small number of bacteria that can take years to become active. The WHO estimates that around a quarter of the world’s population has latent TB.

Around the world, fewer infections were diagnosed and reported; a drop from 7.1m in 2019 to 5.8m in 2020. India made up 40% of this global drop in notifications, while numbers were down 14% in Indonesia and 12% in the Philippines. The number of people given preventive treatment fell by a fifth. WHO said it believes 4.1 million people newly infected with TB in 2020 have not been diagnosed, compared with 2.9 million the year before.

Call for action on TB as deaths rise for first time in decade | Global development | The Guardian

 The world will need to shut down nearly 3,000 coal-fired power plants before 2030 if it is to have a chance of keeping temperature rises within 1.5 Celsius, according to research by climate think tank TransitionZero.

TransitionZero said there are currently more than 2,000 GW of coal-fired power in operation across the world, and that needs to be slashed by nearly half, requiring the closure of nearly one unit per day from now until the end of the decade.

The need to close nearly 1,000 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity would put the onus on China – the world’s biggest source of climate-warming greenhouse gas and owner of around half of the world’s coal-fuelled plants – to accelerate its shift towards cleaner electricity.

“The logical conclusion is that half of the effort will need to come from China,” said Matt Gray, TransitionZero analyst and author of the report. “I think it is fair to say that keeping the lights on and keeping buildings warm will be the exclusive priority of the Chinese government coming into winter,” he said. “But our hope is for this crisis to be seen as a wake-up call for being reliant on coal-fired power.”

World should shut nearly 3,000 coal plants to keep climate goals (trust.org)

Experts were unanimous that unless we keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the earth will suffer heatwaves, cyclones and storms, entire animal and plant species will die out, and large numbers of people forced to flee their homes. To avoid such a fate there are some scientists calling for plans to cool the planet with geoengineering, looking at it as a potential means of reversing the damage. Geoengineering is a way of using technology to cancel out the environmental effects of human actions. 

“There are two categories of geoengineering,” said Roland Séférian, a climatologist at France’s Meteorological Office. The first – and most controversial – involves ways of “modifying solar radiation”, Séférian noted. One such idea is to “reproduce what happens during volcanic eruptions when clouds of dust emerge in the sky and form a kind of screen between the sun and the earth, cooling the atmosphere in the process”.

Another technique is to “whiten” cloud formations by spraying salt into the atmosphere to reflect more of the sun’s rays – and consequently heat – thereby limiting the warming of the oceans. But research into this technology is still in its infancy. 

As things stand, these are still just ideas scientists are thinking about. Dozens of plans have been suggested – some rather fanciful and of dubious plausibility – including putting mirrors in space and even modifying the earth’s trajectory.

One approach we’re already using a lot in trying to address climate change is projects to take CO2 out of the atmosphere such as planting lots of trees. There may not be enough arable land for planting forests.

Aside from that natural means of capturing carbon, two technologies are mentioned  as potential methods of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

The first is called direct air capture (DCA), which involves installing kinds of vacuum cleaners to suck CO2 out of the air. The carbon is then buried underground. Some 20 such projects are already in place across the globe.

The second technology is called bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). This means producing energy by burning biomass – such as wood and agricultural waste – trapping the resultant CO2 and burying it underground.

Neither technology has proven its worth.

Carbon capture can only happen through the transport of CO2 – which requires pipelines and storage space; the kind of infrastructure oil companies have and stand to profit handsomely from.

Geoengineering is something only rich developed countries can afford to do and not the undeveloped and developing nations which lack the fundings yet will endure the worst effects of climate change. 

Further,  since geoengineering technologies still at an embryonic stage, researchers do not know what unintended consequences they might create.

“Even with the best scientific models, it’s hard to see exactly what would happen if people tried to absorb or bounce back solar radiation,” Séférian said. “CO2 capture and storage also raises questions: What would happen if the carbon leaks during transport? How long could it stay buried?” Séférian added, “It’s certainly something that we should be talking about, but it’s not a priority at these stage. The important thing is reducing CO2 emissions. Geoengineering comes later.”

Could a technological fix save the planet from climate change? (france24.com)

Capitalists will seek any answer that does not threaten their profit margin and especially solutions which will make money for them. The simplest remedy to the climate crisis, ending market expansion and profit accumulation but those will not be on any COP26 agenda

 Saudi Arabia and the UAE have summoned Labanon’s ambassadors to protest against Lebanon’s Information Minister George Kordahi’s criticism of the Riyadh-led military coalition fighting rebels in Yemen.

Kordahi said during an interview that the Iran-backed Houthi rebels are “defending themselves … against an external aggression”, adding that “homes, villages, funerals and weddings were being bombed” by the coalition. He also called the seven-year war in Yemen “futile” and said it was “time for it to end”.

When asked about drone attacks, which the Houthis have launched repeatedly into Saudi Arabia along with missiles, he answered, “Yes, but see also the damage that is being done to them as a nation … they are being bombed by planes.”

Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry said in a statement on Wednesday that it handed the ambassador a memorandum protesting against Kordahi’s “offensive” remarks. It also expressed its regret about the “insulting” statements, saying they were “clearly biased towards the terrorist Houthi militia that threatens the security and stability of the region”.

 United Arab Emirates – also a member of the coalition – also condemned Kordahi’s statements and said it had also called in the Lebanese ambassador. Kordahi’s “disgraceful and biased” comments “offended the member countries of the coalition,” it said.

Kuwait also summoned Lebanon’s charge d’affaires in protest.

The Gulf Cooperation Council’s secretary-general said Kordahi’s comments reflected little understanding and were a superficial reading of events.

Kordahi explained, “I am against Arab-Arab wars … accusing me of hostility to Saudi Arabia is rejected.”

Saudi Arabia has shunned Lebanon for years because of Hezbollah’s strong influence in Lebanese state affairs, which it also says has sent fighters to Yemen.  Saudi Arabia has classified the Lebanon-based Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association as a “terrorist” entity, citing links to activities supporting Lebanon’s Shia group Hezbollah.  All assets belonging to the association has been frozen.  Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association although registered as a charity, operates like a bank with dozens of branches and even ATMs.

Saudi Arabia, UAE summon Lebanon envoys over Yemen war criticism | Human Rights News | Al Jazeera

Saudi Arabia designates Hezbollah’s financial arm as ‘terrorists’ | Hezbollah News | Al Jazeera

 “Buried” in a report published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is that mortgage interest payments were set for their biggest rise since at least 2008.  

The OBR figures for predicted year-on-year growth in mortgage interest payments – included in one of the main report’s supplementary tables – suggest homeowners need to be braced for a 5.6% increase in costs next year, rising to 13% in 2023 before falling back to 5.4% in 2024

Householders with the average mortgage of £211,000 could see their payments go up by more than £500 a year. The data indicated that an average borrower on a standard variable rate of 3.26% would find their payments rising by more than £42 a month, or £510 over a year. For a fixed-rate home loan of 2%, the increase would be £25 a month, or £300 a year.

The investment firm AJ Bell said some people with larger mortgages could have to pay more than £1,000 extra a year.

AJ Bell said the data suggested that those who signed up to a record low two-year fixed-rate deal earlier this year could face a big rise when they came to remortgage in the first half of 2023.

“Someone with £250,000 of borrowing who fixed earlier this year and renewed in 2023 would see £600 a year added to their mortgage costs, while someone with £450,000 of borrowing would see their costs hike by £1,068 a year,” said Laura Suter, head of personal finance at the firm. She added that someone on a current average variable rate deal of 2.4% and who had a £250,000 mortgage could find their annual costs increasing by £696 by 2023, while those with £450,000 of borrowing would see their costs rising by £1,260 a year.

Interest rates are at a historic low of 0.1%, but the financial markets have priced in a rate rise when the Bank of England meets next week, which could lift the base rate to 0.25%, and then a 0.25-point increase in December. With two more 0.25% hikes forecast for next year, that could take the base rate to 1% by the end of 2022.

Banks and building societies have already started pulling their cheapest mortgage deals from the market, with some brokers saying that price changes had been coming “thick and fast” during the past few days.

Homeowners face biggest hike in mortgage costs since 2008 | Mortgages | The Guardian

The biggest wage squeeze in British economic history will leave the average worker almost £13,000 a year worse off by the middle of the 2020s The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the UK’s leading tax and spending thinktank, said.

 The IFS said wage stagnation was expected to continue. By 2026, it said average household earnings would be £30,800, compared with £43,700 if wages had risen at the same pace as in the two decades before the banking crisis.

The 2010s were the weakest decade for real wage growth since the Napoleonic wars.

Paul Johnson, the IFS director, said the real-terms damage to household incomes was unprecedented in modern history, with weaker economic growth and higher inflation to blame. “The gap between what we might have expected on the basis of pre-financial crisis trends and what is actually happening is staggering,” he said.

Wage squeeze will leave average worker almost £13k worse off, Sunak warned | Autumn budget 2021 | The Guardian

UK’s annual tax bill ‘to rise by £3,000 a household by 2027’ | Autumn budget 2021 | The Guardian