The new U.N. Refugee Agency, or UNHCR, report revealed that a rising number of people worldwide are fleeing violence, insecurity, and the effects of the climate emergency, with over 84 million relocating within and beyond their home countries during the first half of this year.

Internally displaced people (IDP) make up more than half of the agency’s total tally at 48 million. According to UNHCR, from January to June, there were also 26.6 million refugees as well as 4.4 million asylum-seekers and 3.9 million Venezuelans displaced abroad, which is its own category.

The actual number of stateless people in the world remains unknown due to a lack of accurate data. 

“The international community is failing to prevent violence, persecution, and human rights violations, which continue to drive people from their homes,” said Filippo Grandi, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees. “In addition, the effects of climate change are exacerbating existing vulnerabilities in many areas hosting the forcibly displaced.” He pointed out that “It is the communities and countries with the fewest resources that continue to shoulder the greatest burden in protecting and caring for the forcibly displaced.” 

Developing countries hosted 85% of refugees and Venezuelans displaced abroad;73% of refugees and displaced Venezuelans lived in neighboring countries;Asylum-seekers submitted 555,400 new claims, with the United States receiving the most applications—72,900;Turkey hosted the world’s largest refugee population at 3.7 million people;16,300 refugees were resettled during the first half of this year;1.1 million people returned to their areas or nations of origin; and68% of all refugees—including those from Venezuela—came from just five countries.

The countries from which the most people fled were Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar. Some of those nations also have large amounts of internal displacement.

More than a million people were newly displaced within both Congo and Ethiopia. 

Globally, the nations with the next highest new internal displacements were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Nigeria, Syria, Mozambique, and Burkina Faso.

Africa witnessed the most new internal displacements as conflict and violence flared in several countries across the continent,” says the report, specifically noting the impact of Civil War on Ethiopia’s Tigray region, problems in Mozambique’s northern province of Cabo Delgado, and “a crisis of governance and instability in rural areas of Burkina Faso linked to the presence of armed insurgents.”

According to the report:

“At the end of June 2021, the number of pending individual asylum applications of all types stood at 4.4 million, nearly 7% more than the 4.1 million ending at the end of 2020. This trend is concerning, as lengthy backlogs heighten the risk that individuals with international protection needs will not be able to access protection and solutions in a timely and effective manner. If backlogs become protracted and asylum-seekers wait multiple years for a final determination of their claims without meaningful access to rights or certainty about their future, there will be negative consequences for everyone, including erosion of public confidence in the system, increased costs, and difficulties in returning rejected applicants.”

Over 84 Million People Forcibly Displaced by Climate Emergency, Insecurity, and Violence (commondreams.org)

“Despite the ever-increasing numbers of vaccines produced, both states and pharmaceutical companies are continuing to fail to guarantee fair access to lifesaving medicines for all,” Amnesty’s briefing explains. “Pfizer, one the largest and most profitable vaccine developers… has delivered in excess of 1.8 billion doses to date,” the publication continues. “Despite its many pledges—some misleadingly phrased—Pfizer… continues to reserve the bulk of its vaccines for higher-income countries.”

96% of people in low-income countries remain unvaccinated.

Pfizer expects to earn 36 billion dollars in vaccine sales this year alone, has distorted reality to benefit its corporate image. Pfizer claimed it is “committed to sharing our scientific tools and insights, development expertise, and manufacturing capacity,” yet the company has opposed sharing of intellectual property through the WHO’s Covid-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP). The company is still refusing to participate in technology sharing initiatives, such as the South African-based [World Health Organization] mRNA technology hub, and has lobbied vigorously against efforts to lift intellectual property restrictions, proposals put forward by India and South Africa to the World Trade Organization Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to suspend critical intellectual property provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, 

“Pfizer is still putting profits before people,” Amnesty charges.

Pfizer vaccines language is misleading.” The briefing asserts “Pfizer has amalgamated low, lower-middle, and upper-middle countries—over 84% of the global population—into one group and referred to them as ‘low and middle-income.’ Within this very broad category, the bulk of Pfizer’s doses have in fact been going to ‘upper-middle’ income countries such as Malaysia, Mexico, and Thailand.”

Pfizer said it had shipped two billion vaccine doses by the end of September, but only 154 million doses, or less than 8% of its total—had been sent to 42 low and lower-middle-income countries, and that less than 10% of those shots had gone to low-income countries.

Patrick Wilcken, Amnesty’s head of business and human rights, said in a statement Thursday that “Pfizer says it is committed to supplying doses to low- and middle-income countries, but the numbers just don’t bear this out. The fact is that this company is still putting profits first. As much as these companies might want to massage the facts, the numbers are crystal clear..”

Shame on those countries hoarding vaccines, shame on Big Pharma prioritizing profits over people. Shame on both for blocking attempts to increase vaccine production.

Pfizer Misleading World With False Claims of Equitable Vaccine Distribution: Amnesty (commondreams.org)

 “…We see business leaders and investors flying into Cop on private jets. We see them making fancy speeches. We hear about new pledges and promises. We are drowning in promises. Promises will not stop the suffering of people. Only immediate and drastic action will pull us back from the abyss. It’s hard to believe business and finance leaders when they haven’t delivered before. We simply don’t believe it…” – Vanessa Nakate

 Graduates from poorer backgrounds earn half as much as their more privileged peers in their first job after university because they put themselves forward for fewer roles and lack the family connections and financial support to hunt for top jobs, a survey of 5,000 graduates suggested. 

Those whose parents held professional roles, including chief executives, doctors and teachers, earned an average of £23,457 in their first job after university, compared with just £11,595 among those whose parents held technical, manual or service jobs.

“The stark reality is where you grew up and what your parents did still has an impact on your opportunities and your earning potential,” said Sarah Atkinson, the chief executive of the Social Mobility Foundation. She said wealthier graduates tended to benefit from being able to “hold out for the job and salary” they wanted, as well as having the confidence to aim higher in job applications. They are also better at negotiating over salary, and able to leverage unpaid work experience to start at a higher level, she added.

 After university, poorer graduates applied for an average of six jobs compared with nine for their wealthier peers, the figures showed.

The report showed that more privileged graduates were 47% more likely to use family connections to find their first job. This was especially the case for top earners: of those who earned more than £50,000, 61% said family, friends or former colleagues had helped them to secure a job, compared with just 35% of people earning less than £50,000.

Privileged graduates were also twice as likely to receive financial support during the job-hunting process, enabling them to undertake more unpaid work experience placements. They were also more confident they would find a job they wanted (71% compared with 50%) and benefited from cultural advantages such as taking inspiration from their parents’ professions in their job search.

Willingness to move was also identified as a barrier in the report, with just 64% of poorer graduates open to relocating compared with 76% of their more privileged peers. Those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tended to look for roles in the areas in which they grew up, where they often found a lack of jobs that matched their skill set. The report suggested this could be due to anxieties about the cost of moving to and living in bigger cities.

Disadvantaged graduates earn half as much as privileged peers in first job | Job hunting | The Guardian

“We by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like something standing outside nature … we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst … ” Engels

What threatens society is a lethal and unpredictable mixture of global warming with associated extreme weather events. The planet only supports life because of its delicate relationships with nature’s ecosystems. The anarchic development of capitalism and the rapacious greed of today’s multinational corporations now threaten this fine balance, which is being disturbed on a massive scale. The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ will make the climate hotter and will have a disastrous effect on agriculture. 

Under capitalism, the tremendous achievements that science has contributed to society have been used and developed in an irrational and unplanned manner which has resulted in many catastrophes. capitalism has proved incapable of using the capacity of modern science and technology to ease the nightmare conditions of the people. Conditions of life so characterised by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy still prevail in my countries. Science and technology have made possible the development of computers and robots, the real ‘energy crisis’ for over many people is to obtain the firewood or charcoal as fuel for cooking and little access to electricity. A searing indictment of  big business has been the devastation of the mighty Amazon rainforest with the blessing of the present Brazilian government 

The destruction of the environment is inevitable in a society dominated by blind market forces and has now reached calamitous proportions. The inherent contradictions, antagonisms and the competition of interests make capitalism absolutely incapable of introducing adequate safeguards against excessive carbon emission pollution. Our survival necessitates the elimination of the blind consumerism that causes us to squander so many of the world’s resources needlessly. We believe in socialism where fulfilment will be found in the relationships among people and not in the consumption of things.

Our enemy is capitalism. In order to fight the enemy and win, we have to understand the enemy. Capitalism dominates our economic system. Under capitalism, a handful who own the factories, the mines, corporate farms, and the banks control the wealth that the majority of the people produce. It is this system that we are fighting. The struggle for a liveable planet is a life-and-death issue. The greed of the corporations has polluted our air, poisoned our waters, and drenched our soil and food with dangerous chemicals. People will have to change how they live and how society is organised. The threat to the environment affects everyone. More and more seas of the world are being increasingly polluted because nations are pursuing policies of plunder, blindly seeking high profits in disregard of the safety of the people. The capitalists have polluted and destroyed the environment as they plundered the mineral wealth of all nations.

Capitalism can never be ‘green’ and ethical shopping in your local high street can never save the world. A business, well-intentioned or not, cannot escape market pressures. Competition squeezes profits and strangles ethics. While the market forces standards down it keep the consumer in the dark. Bogus claims about products go unchecked and unpunished. The capitalist market never creates stable, sustainable relationships. Because it is unplanned and because it is driven by the crude search for profits, the short term interests of particular capitalists will always prevail over the welfare of communities and the countryside. The last line of defence for ‘green capitalists’ is the desperate claim that ‘at least they are doing something’. Yet the kind of lifestyle solution promoted by ‘green capitalists’ betrays a deep pessimism about the environment. It suggests the problems are too big and complex for a real, organised solution. The only hope is that by buying eco-friendly products you are putting off an environmental Armageddon for a few years.

Capitalism is harming the environment. The damage to environmentally important areas of our planet is not caused by scarcity or overpopulation suggesting that people, particularly poor people, were a form of pollution. But there was already enough food in the world to sustain the population twice over. The problem in large areas of the globe is not over-exploitation but under-development. In Africa, only 10 percent of farmland is properly irrigated, and the amount of arable land there could be increased. 

Capitalism compromises our relation to nature. All production decisions are made by a tiny handful of capitalists, not in the interests of humanity, but purely for profit. Environmental concerns are ignored in the short term scramble for profit. The vast majority of the population who want to live in a safe, healthy world, and to enjoy nature, have no control over decisions that affect our lives. Some environmentalists claim that economic growth, or even human society itself, is innately hostile to nature. Modern technology is not in itself destructive.

The market can never be harnessed to develop a harmonious relationship with nature because it depends on its exploitation. Its priority is profit and it will inevitably result in the destruction of the environment.

 As COP26 drags on in Glasgow, the major nations and the banks and corporations have largely failed to produce any “progress” in solving the climate emergency. They have been unable to reach any significant agreement, other than half measures. It has been more hot air than success at COP26 or as Greta Thunberg so eloquently put it, “Blah, Blah, Blah.”

One very important issue being ignored at COP26 is the neglected connection between militarism and climate change. The commentator Jonathan Cook in an article has tried to redress that omission with this article on his website.  It is well worth reading.

Its perspective is that “…armed forces are the most polluting on the planet – and the goal at COP26 is to keep that fact a closely guarded secret…Unlike the farming and logging industries, or the manufacturing industries, or the fossil fuel industries, efforts to curb the growth in military spending – let alone reverse it – are off the table at the COP26 summit… The military’s rationale is neither to be sustainable nor to be kind to the planet…Consumption and competition are at the heart of the military mission, whether armies are waging war or marketing their activities as purely “defensive”…”

“The US military alone is estimated to have a larger carbon footprint than most countries. It is widely assumed to be the world’s largest institutional consumer of crude oil…military emissions figures are disguised – lumped in with emissions from other sectors, such as transport.  And emissions from overseas operations – in the case of the US, 70 percent of its military activity – are excluded from the balance sheet entirely…France, with the continent’s most active military, reports none of its emissions… the UK’s military emissions were three times larger than those it reported – even after supply chains, as well as weapons and equipment production, were excluded. The military was responsible for the overwhelming majority of British government emissions…the total emissions by the Norwegian military over the next decade will rise by 30 percent as a result of its F-35 [the latest fighter jet] purchases alone…As well as discounting the environmental harm caused by military equipment procurement and supply chains, countries are also excluding the significant impacts of conflicts and wars… “

“…All this means that, while western politicians promise to cut emissions at COP26, they are actually busy preparing to increase those emissions out of view. Ultimately, the problem is that little can be done to green our militaries, either substantively or through a greenwashing makeover…”

“…[National] “Security”, premised on a fear of neighbours and rivals, can never be satiated. There is always another tank, plane or anti-missile system that can be purchased to create greater “deterrence”, to protect borders more effectively, to intimidate an enemy…”

Adding to what Cook stated is this website which pointed out that “…Britain has two brand new aircraft carriers, each with three runways and space for dozens of fighter jets. These floating airports have largely escaped criticism from climate campaigners who have focused on blocking a third runway at Heathrow…”

Military pollution is the skeleton in the West’s climate closet (jonathan-cook.net)

 “HSBC’s public rhetoric on climate change can’t be trusted,” said Adam McGibbon, UK campaign lead at Market Forces. 

A new analysis of projected extraction in the Permian Basin in the U.S. Southwest exposes the extent to which oil and gas executives put humanity’s future in jeopardy. 

“If left unchecked,” the report notes, “the Permian could continue to produce huge amounts of oil, gas, and gas liquids for decades to come. With global markets flush with Permian oil and gas, it can only be harder to steer the world’s economy toward clean energy.”

 Oil Change International, Earthworks, and the Center for International Environmental Law warn that if the drilling and fracking boom that has turned the Permian Basin into “the world’s single most prolific oil and gas field” over the past decade is allowed to persist unabated for the next three decades, it will generate nearly 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide by mid-century. nearly 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted from burning the fossil fuels that corporate executives expect to extract from the Permian Basin by 2050 represent about 10% of the world’s remaining “carbon budget.” Moreover, “scientists studying methane emissions in the Permian Basin estimate that as much as 3.7% of gas production is being vented and leaked into the atmosphere,” the report notes.

Lorne Stockman, research co-director at Oil Change International, said in a statement. “Producers have free rein to pollute and methane is routinely released in vast quantities. Oil exports fuel Permian production growth and today they constitute around 30% of US oil production. While climate science tells us that we must consume 40% less oil in 2030, Permian producers plan to grow production more than 50%” from 2021 to 2030, said Stockman. “This must not happen.”

An effort by global financial giant HSBC to water down an industry climate pledge exemplifies the fact that banks and other profit-driven companies “cannot be trusted” to end their complicity in the human-caused climate emergency, critics charge. HSBC wrote to the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA)—the initiative started by Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of England—on behalf of 12 large banks, calling on the alliance to loosen restrictions and delay deadlines in order to keep the banks from having to commit to far-reaching climate action. Writing on behalf of banks including JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America, HSBC asked that the alliance remove from its pledge the list of high-emissions sectors for which banks are required to set net-zero targets for within 18 months of joining the NZBA.

HSBC wanted to make the climate commitments from key sectors— including fossil fuels, agriculture, real estate, and steel—”less rigorous” by delaying new emissions reduction targets until 2025 or even 2030. HSBC also asked that members be required to set net-zero targets only for industries with so-called “credible transition pathways,” which “could be highly subjective.” 

Since “committing” to net-zero financed emissions by 2050 one year ago, HSBC has “helped Saudi Aramco, the world’s most polluting company, raise [$13.9 billion] and Qatar Petroleum raise [$12.4 billion] to fund the expansion of the world’s largest gas field.

“Time and time again we see banks launch voluntary climate initiatives which seem to be aimed purely at reaping PR benefits now, while postponing all concrete action as far into the future as possible,” said Maaike Beenes, climate coordinator at BankTrack.

It’s true that multiple global pledges have emerged from COP26. None are legally binding. Few stand up to scrutiny, and most offer sufficient vagueness to be meaningless, full of small-print and caveats. False solutions are being peddled at the COP such as carbon markets, “smoke and mirrors to avoid  keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

If we continue not acting against the real cause of the climate crisis—the capitalist mode of production and society will carry on towards collapse. The scenario is the most dire ever. There are 816 new oil & gas wells being planned and drilled until the end of the year and in 2022. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. It is the way this system operates: just enough propaganda of “ambition” and technofixes to keep fossils flowing as ever, while the climate collapses. If the climate change debate is framed by companies and governments around the terms of net-zero, carbon credits, carbon taxes and offsettings, rather than stopping emissions, when will it ever come to the real problem of the climate crisis? Governments and companies are actively not cutting emissions, but also effectively increasing them. Each and every one of these wells is a crime against humanity.

 The reason why the climate crisis is not being solved is that it means the biggest change in power in the history of humanity

 40 Billion Tons of CO2 by 2050 (commondreams.org)

Critics Say Behind-the-Scene Efforts by HBSC Prove Big Bank Climate Pledges ‘Cannot Be Trusted’ (commondreams.org)

Opinion | Drill, Baby, Drill: Capitalism’s Only Plan for Climate Is Collapse | João Camargo (commondreams.org)

The richest 1% of the world’s people (those earning more than $172,000 a year) produce 15% of the world’s carbon emissions: twice the combined impact of the poorest 50%. On average, they emit over 70 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person every year, 30 times more than we can each afford to release if we’re not to exceed 1.5C of global heating. While the emissions of the world’s middle classes are expected to fall sharply over the next decade, thanks to the general decarbonisation of our economies, the amount produced by the richest will scarcely decline at all: in other words, they’ll be responsible for an even greater share of total CO2. Becoming good global citizens would mean cutting their carbon consumption by an average of 97%.

Even if 90% of the population produced no carbon at all, the anticipated emissions of the richest 10% (those earning over $55,000) across the next nine years would use almost the entire global budget. The disparity in environmental impact mirrors a nation’s inequality. No wonder the prosperous people of the wealthy nations are so keen to seek to shift the blame to China, or on to other people’s birthrates: sometimes it seems they will try anything before attending to their own impacts.

A recent analysis of the lifestyles of 20 billionaires found that each produced an average of over 8,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide: 3,500 times their fair share in a world committed to no more than 1.5C of heating. The major causes are their jets and yachts. A superyacht alone, kept on permanent standby, as some billionaires’ boats are, generates around 7,000 tonnes of CO2 a year. 

Flying accounts for most of the greenhouse gas emissions of the super-rich, which is why the wealthiest 1% generate roughly half the world’s aviation emissions. 

Bill Gates has an estimated footprint 3,000 times bigger than the good global citizen’s, largely as a result of his collection of jets and helicopters. He claims to “buy green aviation fuel”, but there is no such thing. Biofuels for jets, if widely deployed, would trigger an environmental catastrophe, as so much plant material is required to power a single flight. This means that crops or plantations must displace either food production or wild ecosystems. No other “green” aviation fuels are currently available.

Make extreme wealth extinct: it’s the only way to avoid climate breakdown | George Monbiot | The Guardian

A global water crisis is being ignored at Cop26 to the detriment of billions of people’s lives, according to the charity WaterAid.

A 2016 study found two-thirds of the global population, four billion people, faced water shortages, and many were at increased risk of floods and droughts brought on by the climate crisis.

“The climate crisis is a water crisis at its core,” he said. Rainfall patterns have changed in many parts of the world; “more intense and more frequent floods pollute water sources and destroy crops or homes, while longer and more frequent droughts dry up the springs many people need to survive.”

Water had not had “nearly enough” attention at the climate conference in Glasgow, with urgent action needed, said Tim Wainwright, chief executive of WaterAid.

“The way that climate change affects human beings is almost entirely through water, either too much or too little,” he said. “So why aren’t we talking about water all the time? We need the kind of action on water that we have already happening on the energy transition,” he said Wainwright said very little action was being taken to help affected communities. A WaterAid analysis in 2020 found that water received less than 3% of climate finance overall.

Rising sea levels were introducing salt into water sources in places, and drought was pushing water deep underground in others, he said, forcing people, mostly women, to spend longer and walk further in search of water.

“Water is fundamental to life,” said Wainwright. “It underlies your health, your ability to have an education…Unless action was taken, the future would not be “not worth thinking about”, Wainwright added. “It’s calamitous. A lack of access to water is already killing people … It’s unthinkable not to do something about this. The world has to rise to this challenge.”

“We need a revolution that takes us to zero carbon and we need a revolution that takes us to adapting the world to cope with the climate change that is irreversible,” he said.

There are two billion people, or 1 in 4, who lack access to safe drinking water.

Nearly half the world’s population (3.6 billion people) don’t have adequate sanitation.

6 billion cases of diarrhoea.

12 billion cases of parasitic worms.