ReportWire

Tag: Opinion

  • Adopting Bitcoin: El Salvador Has Work To Do, But The Experiment Is Worth Celebrating

    Adopting Bitcoin: El Salvador Has Work To Do, But The Experiment Is Worth Celebrating

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Rikki, author and co-host of the “Bitcoin Italia,” and “Stupefatti” podcasts. He is one half of the Bitcoin Explorers, along with Laura, who chronicle Bitcoin adoption around the world, one country at a time.

    On the road again. Direction: San Salvador. The Bitcoin community is about to gather here for Adopting Bitcoin, the final major Bitcoin conference of the year, but certainly not the least. Friends and Bitcoiners from around the world are flying into the country to work together and promote Bitcoin adoption. Who knows how many of them knew much about this country before the “Ley Bitcoin” was implemented?

    [ad_2]

    Rikki

    Source link

  • Deglobalization And The End Of Trust-Based Money Set The Stage For National Bitcoin Adoption

    Deglobalization And The End Of Trust-Based Money Set The Stage For National Bitcoin Adoption

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Ansel Lindner, a bitcoin and financial markets researcher and the host of the “Bitcoin & Markets” and “Fed Watch” podcasts.

    Two forces have dominated the globe economically and politically for the last 75 years: globalization and trust-based money. However, the time for both of these forces has passed, and their waning will bring about a great reset of the global order.

    But this is not the global, Marxist kind of Great Reset promoted by Klaus Schwab and those who attend Davos. This is an emergent, market-driven reset characterized by a multipolar world and a new monetary system.

    [ad_2]

    Ansel Lindner

    Source link

  • Rich Nations Doubly Responsible for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Rich Nations Doubly Responsible for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Hezri A Adnan (kuala lumpur, malaysia)
    • Inter Press Service

    KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 06 (IPS) – Natural flows do not respect national boundaries. The atmosphere and oceans cross international borders with little difficulty, as greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other fluids, including pollutants, easily traverse frontiers.

    Yet, in multilateral fora, strategies to address climate change and its effects remain largely national. GHG emissions – typically measured as carbon dioxide equivalents – are the main bases for assessing national climate action commitments.

    Hezri A AdnanAssessing national responsibility
    Jayati Ghosh, Shouvik Chakraborty and Debamanyu Das have critically considered how national climate responsibilities are assessed. The standard method – used by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – measures GHG emissions by activities within national boundaries.

    This approach attributes GHG emissions to the country where goods are produced. Such carbon accounting focuses blame for global warming on newly industrializing economies. But it ignores who consumes the goods and where, besides diverting attention from those most responsible for historical emissions.

    Thus, attention has focused on big national emitters. China, India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa and other large developing economies – especially the ‘late industrializers’ – have become the new climate villains.

    China, the United States and India are now the world’s three largest GHG emitters in absolute terms, accounting for over half the total. With more rapid growth in recent decades, China and India have greatly increased emissions.

    Undoubtedly, some developing countries have seen rapid GHG emission increases, especially during high growth episodes. In the first two decades of this century, such emissions rose over 3-fold in China, 2.7 times in India, and 4.7-fold in Indonesia.

    Meanwhile, most rich economies have seen smaller increases, even declines in emissions, as they ‘outsource’ labour- and energy-intensive activities to the global South. Thus, over the same period, production emissions fell by 12% in the US and Japan, and by nearly 22% in Germany.

    Jomo Kwame SundaramObscuring inequalities
    Only comparing total national emissions is not just one-sided, but also misleading, as countries have very different populations, economic outputs and structures.

    But determining responsibility for global warming fairly is necessary to ensure equitable burden sharing for adequate climate action. Most climate change negotiations and discussions typically refer to aggregate national emissions and income measures, rather than per capita levels.

    But such framing obscures the underlying inequalities involved. A per capita view comparing average GHG emissions offers a more nuanced, albeit understated perspective on the global disparities involved.

    Thus, in spite of recent reductions, rich economies are still the greatest GHG emitters per capita. The US and Australia spew eight times more per head than developing countries like India, Indonesia and Brazil.

    Despite its recent emission increases, even China emits less than half US per capita levels. Meanwhile, its annual emissions growth fell from 9.3% in 2002 to 0.6% in 2012. Even The Economist acknowledged China’s per capita emissions in 2019 were comparable to industrializing Western nations in 1885!

    Several developments have contributed to recent reductions in rich nations’ emissions. Richer countries can better afford ‘climate-friendly’ improvements, by switching energy sources away from the most harmful fossil fuels to less GHG-emitting options such as natural gas, nuclear and renewables.

    Changes in international trade and investment with ‘globalization’ have seen many rich countries shift GHG-intensive production to developing countries.

    Thus, rich economies have ‘exported’ production of – and responsibility for – GHG emissions for what they consume. Instead, developed countries make more from ‘high value’ services, many related to finance, requiring far less energy.

    Export emissions, shift blame
    Thus, rich countries have effectively adopted then World Bank chief economist Larry Summers’ proposal to export toxic waste to the poorest countries where the ‘opportunity cost’ of human life was presumed to be lowest!

    His original proposal has since become a development strategy for the age of globalization! Thus, polluting industries – including GHG-emitting production processes – have been relocated – together with labour-intensive industries – to the global South.

    Although kept out of the final published version of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, over 40% of developing country GHG emissions were due to export production for developed countries.

    Such ‘emission exports’ by rich OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries increased rapidly from 2002, after China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). These peaked at 2,278 million metric tonnes in 2006, i.e., 17% of emissions from production, before falling to 1,577 million metric tonnes.

    For the OECD, the ‘carbon balance’ is determined by deducting the carbon dioxide equivalent of GHG emissions for imports from those for production, including exports. Annual growth of GHG discharges from making exports was 4.3% faster than for all production emissions.

    Thus, the US had eight times more per capita GHG production emissions than India’s in 2019. US per capita emissions were more than thrice China’s, although the world’s most populous country still emits more than any other nation.

    With high GHG-emitting products increasingly made in developing countries, rich countries have effectively ‘exported’ their emissions. Consuming such imports, rich economies are still responsible for related GHG emissions.

    Change is in the air
    Industries emitting carbon have been ‘exported’ – relocated abroad – for their products to be imported for consumption. But the UNFCCC approach to assigning GHG emissions responsibility focuses only on production, ignoring consumption of such imports.

    Thus, if responsibility for GHG emissions is also due to consumption, per capita differences between the global North and South are even greater.

    In contrast, the OECD wants to distribute international corporate income tax revenue according to consumption, not production. Thus, contradictory criteria are used, as convenient, to favour rich economies, shaping both tax and climate discourses and rules.

    While domestic investments in China have become much ‘greener’, foreign direct investment by companies from there are developing coal mines and coal-fired powerplants abroad, e.g., in Indonesia and Vietnam.

    If not checked, such FDI will put other developing countries on the worst fossil fuel energy pathway, historically emulating the rich economies of the global North. A Global Green New Deal would instead enable a ‘big push’ to ‘front-load’ investments in renewable energy.

    This should enable adequate financing of much more equitable development while ensuring sustainability. Such an approach would not only address national-level inequalities, but also international disparities.

    China now produces over 70% of photovoltaic solar panels annually, but is effectively blocked from exporting them abroad. In a more cooperative world, developing countries’ lower-cost – more affordable – production of the means to generate renewable energy would be encouraged.

    Instead, higher energy costs now – due to supply disruptions following the Ukraine war and Western sanctions – are being used by rich countries to retreat further from their inadequate, modest commitments to decelerate global warming.

    This retreat is putting the world at greater risk. Already, the international community is being urged to abandon the maximum allowable temperature increase above pre-industrial levels, thus further extending and deepening already unjust North-South relations.

    But change is in the air. Investing in and subsidizing renewable energy technologies in developing countries wanting to electrify, can enable them to develop while mitigating global warming.

    Hezri A Adnan is adjunct professor at the Faculty of Sciences, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Path To A Bitcoin Economy: Decentralized Bitcoin-Backed Credit

    The Path To A Bitcoin Economy: Decentralized Bitcoin-Backed Credit

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by David Seroy, Founder and President of Old North Capital Fund.

    It is the author’s opinion that credit-based, bitcoin-backed dollars will act as the bridge connecting bitcoin, dollars, the Lightning Network, validity roll-ups, and elements of free banking in a hyperbitcoinized world.

    Bitcoin and the dollar are symbiotic. Like yin and yang, bitcoin and dollars provide balance. On the one hand, bitcoin acts as a counterparty-free, decentralized, scarce, digital bearer asset to hedge against excessive credit creation. On the other hand, the free market has an insatiable desire for issuing credit-based dollars which fill the role of both a ‘stable” unit of account and an elastic monetary layer.

    [ad_2]

    David Seroy

    Source link

  • ‘Gaslighters have two signature moves’: Are you being gaslighted at work? Here’s how to recognize the signs.

    ‘Gaslighters have two signature moves’: Are you being gaslighted at work? Here’s how to recognize the signs.

    [ad_1]

    Are you less happy at work since you befriended that new recruit? Have they told you stories about how colleagues have constantly undermined them? Or do you have a boss who excludes you from key meetings — and then asks why you did not attend a meeting even though you are pretty sure you were not invited to begin with? If so, you may be working with a gaslighter.

    Gaslighters, as the name suggests, cast themselves in a positive light — friend or confidante who is here to help — but actually operate much more effectively in the shadows. Merriam-Webster named “gaslighting” the word of the year. Searches for the word on merriam-webster.com surged 1,740% in 2022 over the prior year year, despite there not being an event that the publisher — known for its dictionaries — could point to as a cause of the spike.

    It defines gaslighting as “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

    Perhaps the reasons were more personal — or professional — than political. My social media feed is now full of thought pieces on how to spot one of these saboteurs. The comments sections read like the show notes of a True Crime podcast — gruesome yet hard to turn away from. 

    The term was coined in a 1938 play, “Gas Light,” a psychological thriller set in Victorian London and written by Patrick Hamilton.

    The term was further popularized after George Cukor’s 1944 film, “Gaslight,” based on the play, in which Gregory (Charles Boyer) tries to convince his wife Paula (Ingrid Bergman) that she has lost her reason. While he turns on the lights in the attic while searching for hidden jewels, the gaslight flickers in the rest of the house. He tells Paula that she is merely imagining the dimming of the lights.

    The workplace is fertile ground for such behavior, given what’s at stake: money, power, status, promotion, rivalry and the intrigue that often comes with office politics. 

    I’m in the business of helping people work out their conflicts at work. None of this surprises me. In fact, I dedicated a whole chapter in my book, “Jerks at Work,” to gaslighters. 

    “‘For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first.’”

    What has surprised me is how wide-ranging the definition of “gaslighting” has become. Everything from “not respecting personal boundaries” to “talking so much shit about me I couldn’t get hired for two years” seems to fall under the umbrella. 

    What I’ve learned from my doom scrolling is that the word “gaslighter” — probably the worst name to bestow on a colleague or boss — seems to refer to anyone who’s done a whole bunch of bad things to us at work, especially things that involve humiliation. 

    So what really is a gaslighter, and why is it important to distinguish one from, say, a demeaning boss with a chip on their shoulder and a penchant for public shaming?

    If we stick to the clinical definition, gaslighters have two signature moves: They lie with the intent of creating a false reality, and they cut off their victims socially. 

    They position themselves as both savior and underminer, creating a negative and fearful atmosphere, spreading gossip and taking credit for other people’s work. They are often jealous and resentful, and aim to undercut others in order to further their own position.

    You may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague. The gaslighter might try to convince you that Johnny is trying to steal your leadership role on a project, and encourage you to freeze him out in the cafeteria at lunch time, or simply be extra wary about sharing important information.

    For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first. For this reason, it could also be considered a form of workplace harassment.

    They often flatter them, make them feel special. Others create a fear of speaking up in their victims by making their position at work seem more precarious than it is. And the lies are complex, coming at you in layers. It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process. 

    “‘It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process.’”

    But there’s a difference between an annoying coworker or micromanaging boss, and a gaslighter, who lies and conspires to undermine your position. “The gaslighter doesn’t want you to improve or succeed — they’re out to sabotage you,” according to the careers website Monster.com. “They will accuse you of being confused or mistaken, or that you took something they said the wrong way because you are insecure. They might even manipulate paper trails to “prove” they are right.”

    Examples cited by Monster.com: “You know you turned in a project, but the gaslighter insists you never gave it to them. You can tell someone has been in your space, moving things around, or even on your computer, but you don’t have proof. You are the only one not included in a team email or meeting invite, or intentionally kept out of the loop. Then when you don’t respond or show up, you are reprimanded.”

    Knowing this, what can you do to prevent yourself from becoming a target? First, recognize that gaslighters don’t wear their strategy on their sleeve. Flattery, making you feel like you’re a part of a special club, or questioning your expertise are not things that raise gaslighting alarm bells. 

    Rather than looking out for mean behavior by a boss or coworker, look out for signs of social isolation. A boss who wants to cut you off from coworkers and other leaders should raise red flags, even if the reason is that “you’re better than them.” 

    Second, recognize that lie detection is a precarious — and from a scientific perspective, almost impossible — business. Don’t try to become a lie detector, instead take notes, so you can put your “gaslighter” on notice that you are wise to their tactics. You can also use the notes as evidence if you decide to later raise the situation with Human Resources. 

    Here are some ways to beat the gaslighter: Send emails with “a summary of today’s meeting” so you can document the origin of ideas and make sure they don’t steal credit from you. Furthermore, document things that happened in person, and share it with your would-be gaslighter. And speak up at meetings. Don’t allow yourself to be browbeaten into submission. 

    The more you document, the more difficult it will be to be victimized. But a word of warning: Don’t try to confront gaslighters — instead, go to your social network to build your reality back up. Trying to beat these folks at their own game is a losing strategy. But these small things, done early in a working relationship, can work wonders. 

    Tessa West is a New York University social psychology professor with a particular interest in workplace behavior, and author of “Jerks at Work: Toxic Coworkers and What to Do About Them.“

    Related stories:

    ‘We’re like rats in a cage’: Sick and tired of their jobs, American workers strive to regain their agency, their time — and their sanity‘

    People are seeking a genuine connection with their colleagues’ — one that goes beyond ‘Hollywood Squares’ Zoom meetings. Not all workers are happy with remote work.‘

    The backlash to quiet quitting smacks of another attempt by the ruling class to get workers back under their thumbs:’ Am I wrong?

    We want to hear from readers who have stories to share about the effects of increasing costs and a changing economy. If you’d like to share your experience, write to readerstories@marketwatch.com. Please include your name and the best way to reach you. A reporter may be in touch.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Data Suggests Bitcoin Miners Have Capitulated, Bottom Is Close

    Data Suggests Bitcoin Miners Have Capitulated, Bottom Is Close

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Zack Voell, a bitcoin mining and markets researcher.

    Bitcoin miners often suffer the brunt of bear market woes thanks to some of the industry’s highest capital expenditures, smallest margins and most unreliable infrastructure. Although the current bearish phase has been one of Bitcoin’s shallowest drawdowns, miners have suffered more than ever.

    Layoffs, bankruptcies, lawsuits and other negative press have battered one of Bitcoin’s most prominent sectors. But every bear market eventually finds a bottom — the pain climaxes and things slowly begin to recover. A variety of data suggest mining has reached this point of its market cycle, which could offer a bit of optimism going into the new year.

    [ad_2]

    Zack Voell

    Source link

  • Proof-Of-Work Is The Only Viable Form Of Consensus

    Proof-Of-Work Is The Only Viable Form Of Consensus

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Pierre Gildenhuys, the co-founder of a Hong Kong-based social environment tech startup.

    Proof-of-work is the consensus mechanism that the Bitcoin protocol uses. On a fundamental level, this means that work has to be done to prove the transactions that have transpired on the network are valid.

    Proof-of-work functions with specialized “computers” known as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), which input transaction data, information from the previous block hearer and a nonce (random number) to guess the result of hash functions. Hash functions are one-directional mathematical equations, so it is impossible to figure out a resulting output from a publicly visible input other than through rapid guessing as these ASICs do. “Miners” are the people who operate these machines, and they want to increase the number of hashes (or guesses) per second that their devices can produce, and they want to find the cheapest and most reliable source of energy so that this mining becomes profitable for them to pay off the cost of their machines and to make an income to cover their other expenses. Despite this, it is an incredibly competitive industry as a result of Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment: depending on how many hashes per second are mining on the network, the complexity and difficulty of the hash function will increase or decrease accordingly so that it takes an average of 10 minutes for each new block to be found across the global network.

    [ad_2]

    Pierre Gildenhuys

    Source link

  • Bitcoin Will Not Submit To Black Swans

    Bitcoin Will Not Submit To Black Swans

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Bernardo Filipe, a life-long thinker, philosopher and author of “The Straight Science.”

    “Earnings-free assets with no residual value are problematic.

    The implication is that, owing to the absence of any explicit yield benefitting the holder of bitcoin, if we expect that at any point in the future the value will be zero when miners are extinct, the technology becomes obsolete, or future generations get into other such ‘assets’ and bitcoin loses its appeal for them, then the value must be zero now.” — Nassim Taleb

    [ad_2]

    Bernardo Filipe

    Source link

  • Global Risks in 2022: The Year of Colliding Consequences

    Global Risks in 2022: The Year of Colliding Consequences

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jens Orback (stockholm, sweden)
    • Inter Press Service

    STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Dec 02 (IPS) – As 2022 draws to a close, we are confronted with an unprecedented collision of global risks, interacting and reinforcing each other in dangerous new ways.

    The impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still rippling outwards, colliding and combining like waves on a sea. The heightened threat of nuclear conflict, the global energy crisis, the rising cost of food, deepening poverty and inequality: these consequences are interacting with the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effects of climate change.

    This confluence of global risks has led to unwelcome new terms entering the dictionary, such as ‘polycrisis’ and ‘multicrisis.’

    In the face of such complex challenges, it’s easy to feel helpless and paralyzed. And yet, if this year has shown us anything, it’s that we need an urgent upgrade of our systems of cooperation to tackle them.

    It starts with making sure we have the right knowledge. Climate scientist Johan Rockström, a board member of our foundation, has written powerfully on the need for an international consortium of scientists to provide shared insights on the emerging interactions between risks.

    At the Global Challenges Foundation, we’ve just released our annual review of global catastrophic risks, risks that threaten the survival of more than ten per cent of humanity. This year’s report shows how, more than ever, our systems and structures for preventing and managing these risks are both outdated and inadequate.

    Whether it’s climate change, environmental breakdown, nuclear conflict, pandemics or artificial intelligence, we have a systemic problem with processing and acting on the complex challenges that lie in the intersections.

    Of course, there is no one magic solution, given the multilateral system that we inhabit. However, there are many existing proposals to improve the mechanics of global governance that could be immediately fast tracked.

    For example, there are several important proposals in the United Nations Secretary-General’s 2021 report, Our Common Agenda. These include the idea for an Emergency Platform that would be triggered by a major crisis such as the use of a nuclear weapon and coordinate the global response.

    The report also proposes reviving the UN’s Trusteeship Council, inactive for many years, as a multi-stakeholder body to tackle emerging challenges and to act to preserve the global commons on behalf of future generations.

    The failure of the COP27 climate talks in Egypt to agree strong measures to curb fossil fuel production has demonstrated how intergovernmental negotiations are not producing rapid enough action on climate change.

    On top of this, the global energy crisis has led to some countries slowing or shelving their green agendas, in a year of extreme temperatures and climate-related crises.

    We urgently need to find alternative ways of collaborating to prevent catastrophic climate change. One key proposal is a carbon tax – administered at both global and national levels – with the proceeds going to the communities who are most affected.

    The International Monetary Fund concluded that, of all the various recognised strategies to reduce fossil fuel emissions, implementing a carbon tax would be the most powerful and efficient.

    Of course, this may not be the easiest ‘sell’ politically during a cost-of-living crisis but evidence from countries like Canada shows that it can be done gradually and sensitively.

    The spread of COVID-19 around the world since 2020 has highlighted the linkages between environmental destruction and pandemics. COVID-19 is unlikely to be the last pandemic that humanity faces.

    As renowned epidemiologist and public health expert Professor David Heymann writes in his pandemics chapter in our report, as well as tackling the root causes of new pathogens coming into contact with humans, we need to upgrade the international frameworks that govern how countries report on new disease outbreaks.

    This means enacting a stronger enforcement mechanism to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations, and a Pandemic Treaty.

    When it comes to nuclear risk, looming ever larger over Ukraine, it’s now more likely than ever that nuclear weapons will be used in either military actions, miscalculation or by accident than at any time since the beginning of the nuclear age.

    The international community must treat all threats to use nuclear weapons very seriously. Even ‘small’ or ‘tactical’ weapons can cause terrible damage and their use would undermine the nuclear taboo in place since their use at the end of the Second World War.

    Nuclear expert, and contributor to our report, Kennette Benedict says there is still much more we can do to prevent a nuclear disaster. IAEA Director General Raffael Grossi and his colleagues are doing heroic work to prevent nuclear plant disasters in Ukraine.

    The international community must continue to support the agency and provide more funding for IAEA’s work. Explicit protection of nuclear plants in violent conflicts and war should be codified in international law.

    Only with a clear understanding of each of the greatest risks facing humanity can we move forward to rethink how we could better manage them. And only with new kinds of global cooperation can we deal with today’s complex web of interlocking and reinforcing global risks to ensure a habitable, safe and peaceful future.

    As we say goodbye to this year of global risks, this should be top of our ‘to do’ list for 2023.

    Jens Orback is Executive Director of The Global Challenges Foundation

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • No, Christine Lagarde, Inflation Did Not “Come From Nowhere”

    No, Christine Lagarde, Inflation Did Not “Come From Nowhere”

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Federico Rivi, an independent journalist and author of the Bitcoin Train newsletter.

    We are raising interest rates “because we are fighting inflation. Inflation has come out of practically nothing.” So said European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, host of the Irish talk show Late Late Show on Friday, October 28, 2022. Words apparently contradicting a statement that came shortly afterwards in the same interview. Inflation, she said, is caused “by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. […] This energy crisis is causing massive inflation that we have to defeat.”

    [ad_2]

    Federico Rivi

    Source link

  • Illegal Immigration: A Mounting Global Crisis

    Illegal Immigration: A Mounting Global Crisis

    [ad_1]

    Credit: UNOHCR.
    • Opinion by Joseph Chamie (portland, usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    PORTLAND, USA, Dec 01 (IPS) – Illegal immigration has evolved into a mounting crisis for a growing number of countries worldwide and governments appear to be at a loss on how to deal with the crisis.

    Migrant destination countries are facing record high numbers of unlawful border crossings and unauthorized arrivals at their shores, thousands of visa overstayers, and millions of men, women and children residing unlawfully within their countries.

    In many of those countries illegal migration is viewed as a threat to national sovereignty. It is seen as undermining cultural integrity. Illegal migration is also creating financial drains on public funds.

    Some officials as well as much of the public in those countries have described the continuing illegal immigration to their borders and shores as an “invasion”, a “battle situation” and a “security threat”. And some have called on their governments to “send’em straight back”.

    In addition, illegal immigration is also undermining the rule of law, threatening regional cooperation, challenging law enforcement agencies, eroding public support for legal migration, altering political equilibrium and adding to nativism and xenophobia. In addition, the public’s concerns about immigration are reflected in the growing influence of far-right political parties in such countries as Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Sweden and the United States.

    Multinational migrant-smuggling networks are also contributing to the mounting illegal immigration crisis as well as generating substantial profits for criminal organizations. Those networks exploit migrants seeking to leave their countries, offering various services, including transportation, accommodations and critical information.

    Government programs and plans to counter migrant smuggling networks have achieved limited success. Also, international attempts to address illegal immigration, such as the Global Compact on International Migration of 2018, have not diminished illegal immigration nor the activities of smuggling networks.

    A major factor behind the rise of illegal immigration is the large and growing supply of men, women and children in sending countries who want to migrate to another country and by any means possible, including illegal immigration. The number of people in the world wanting to migrate to another country is estimated at nearly 1.2 billion.

    The billion plus people wanting to migrate represents about 15 percent of the world’s population. That number of people wanting to migrate is also more than four times the size of the estimated total number immigrants worldwide in 2020, which was 281 million (Figure 1).

    Source: United Nations and Gallup Polls.

    The country with the largest number of immigrants is the United States with almost 48 million foreign-born residents in 2022, or approximately 14 percent of its population. About one quarter of those immigrants, or approximately 11.4 million, are estimated to be illegal immigrants.

    While an estimate of the total number of immigrants in the world is readily available, the number of illegal immigrants is a very different matter with few reliable estimates available on a global scale.

    Nearly two decades ago it was estimated that perhaps 20 percent of the immigrants were unauthorized migrants. Applying that proportion to the current total number of immigrants of 281 million yields an estimate of about 56 million unauthorized migrants. If the U.S. proportion of illegal immigrants is applied to the total global immigrant population, the resulting estimated number of illegal immigrants in the world is approximately 70 million.

    The widely recognized human rights regarding international migration are relatively straightforward. Articles 13 and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights respectively state, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”, and “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.

    Importantly, however, everyone does not have the right to enter nor remain in another country. The unlawful entry into a country and overstaying a temporary visit are clearly not recognized human rights. Moreover, to be granted asylum, an individual needs to meet the internationally recognized definition of a refugee.

    According to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, a refugee is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

    Difficult living conditions, such as unemployment, poverty, inadequate housing, lack of health care, marital discord and political unrest, do not qualify an individual for the internationally recognized refugee status nor to a legitimate claim for asylum.

    Nevertheless, in the absence of a right to migrate to another country, people wanting to do so are increasingly turning to illegal immigration. And upon arriving at the destination country, many are claiming the right to seek asylum.

    Once inside the country, the legal determination of an asylum claim often takes years, permitting claimants time to establish households, find employment and integrate into accepting communities, such as sanctuary cities. Also, many of the unauthorized migrants believe, based on the experiences of millions before them, that government authorities will not repatriate them even if their asylum claim is rejected, which is typically the case.

    The mounting illegal immigration crisis is complicated by 103 million people who are estimated to have been forcibly displaced worldwide by mid-2022. That number is a record high for forcibly displaced people and is expected to grow in the coming years.

    Approximately 50 percent of those forcibly displaced were displaced internally and 5 percent were people in need of international protection. In addition, the number of refugees has reached a record high of nearly 33 million worldwide and the estimate for asylum seekers is close to 5 million (Figure 2).

    Source: UNHCR.

    The worldwide numbers of forcibly displaced people, internally displaced people and refugees have increased substantially since the start of the 21st century. For example, over the past two decades the numbers of displaced people increased from 38 million to nearly 86 million (Figure 3).

    Source: UNHCR.

    Many of those people have been displaced by weather-related events. UNHCR estimates that an annual average of nearly 22 million people have been forcibly displaced by events related to weather, such as wildfires, floods, and extreme heat temperatures.

    Moreover, the numbers of displaced people are expected to increase substantially over the coming decades. Some estimate that by midcentury more than one billion people, largely from less developed countries, could be displaced due to climate and environmental changes and civil unrest.

    By third decade of the 21st century, the following major trends contributing to the mounting global illegal migration crisis have become abundantly clear:

    1. Powerful forces worldwide are fueling illegal immigration, including demographics, poverty, smuggling networks, civil unrest and increasingly climate change, which is creating “climate refugees”.
    2. Those potent forces are resulting in large and increasing numbers of men, women and even unaccompanied children arriving at borders and landing on shores of destination countries without authorization.
    3. Unauthorized migrants, as well as visa overstayers, seek to settle in those destination countries by any means available and are not prepared to return to their countries of origin.
    4. Most of the large and growing numbers of unauthorized migrants now residing unlawfully within countries are not likely to be repatriated.

    Finally, it is also clear that neither governments nor international agencies have yet been able to come up with effective policies and programs to address the mounting global illegal immigration crisis.

    Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP 27: A Global COP-Out

    COP 27: A Global COP-Out

    [ad_1]

    Credit: UN Photo/Albert González Farran
    • Opinion by Robert Sandford (hamilton, canada)
    • Inter Press Service

    HAMILTON, Canada, Dec 01 (IPS) – Last year’s climate COP 26 in Glasgow, Scotland, was billed as the most important conference in the history of humanity. But it failed to deliver. If anything, that failure added urgency for global climate action at COP 27 in Egypt last month.

    Now that it this year’s COP is over, it is useful to reflect on a few excerpts from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s opening day remarks:

    • “These climate conferences remind us that the answer is in our hands and the clock is ticking.”
    • “We are in the fight of our lives, and we are losing.”
    • “Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing, global temperatures keep rising…and our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible.”
    • “We are getting dangerously close to the point of no return. And to avoid that dire fate all countries must accelerate their transition now, in this decade.”
    • “Humanity has a choice: cooperate or perish.”
    • “It is either a climate solidarity pact, or it is a collective suicide pact.”

    Credit: UN Photo/Albert González Farran

    Sadly, COP27’s outcomes make very clear that the world signed on to the one the global fossil fuel sector wanted: the suicide pact.

    COP 27 did not deliver. In fact, it has been labelled by many as the worst COP ever.

    What happened in Egypt puts a whole new spin on the term COP-out. But how could it have been otherwise?

    COP 27 was held in a country aligned with surrounding petrostates ruled by a ruthless dictatorship and was sponsored by one of the world’s largest plastic polluters: Coca-Cola.

    It did not seem to register with organizers that the company’s relentless bottled water production is widely held in the global water science and policy community as a triumph of marketing over common sense.

    Did the organizers not see that Coca-Cola’s sponsorship of COP 27 was an open invitation to blatant global greenwashing?

    The obvious should not be missed here: Capitalism is not out of control, capitalism is in control – and COP 27 offers clear proof of that truth.

    As society’s reliance on petroleum grew and our energy demands expanded, the global fossil fuel cartel quietly evolved into a superpower unto itself. There were more than 600 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP 27. What, one might reasonably ask, could possibly go wrong? Lots, evidently.

    The oil and gas lobby completely corrupted the COP process. The proceedings and outcomes of COP 27 make it clear that the fossil fuel sector now owns the COP agenda. The sole aim of their presence there was to prevent, not promote, progress on dealing with the global climate threat. And they succeeded.

    None of the agreements negotiated in Egypt are binding. Like the national emissions reductions target put forward by UN Member States under the Paris Climate Accord, the commitments made at COP 27 are all merely aspirational.

    There is no penalty for failing to achieve them. There have been 27 COPs since 1995 and still no formal binding agreement on cutting fossil fuel burning.

    Except for a small blip during the pandemic, fossil fuel burning globally continues to rise, not fall.

    As one participant pointed out, the aspirational scheme agreed upon in Sharm el Sheikh is a down payment on disaster. No one expects anyone to actually compensate developing countries that contribute little to the climate threat for the catastrophic impacts climate breakdown is now having on them.

    With COP 28 scheduled to be held next year in the United Arab Emirates – one of the most notorious petrostates of them all – the only thing COP 27 accomplished was to expose what the COP summit process has become – a pointless travelling circus set up once a year out of which little but platitudes emerge.

    The entire COP process is no longer fit for purpose. It is a bloated, corrupted process too moribund to come up with any measures effective enough, and binding enough, to bring about the changes we need to make to avoid climate catastrophe.

    Voices calling for change get louder and louder. The COP process must be replaced with something more efficient that does its work largely hidden from the glare of the media.

    It can no longer be allowed to be contaminated by corporate sponsorship. The process can no longer be allowed to be owned and corrupted by the global fossil fuel cartel and oil and gas sector lobbyists.

    One suggested way of doing this is to establish an IPCC-like structure of smaller bodies, each addressing key issues, notably energy transition, restorative agriculture, transportation and issues related to damage and loss.

    Each such body would be made up of representatives of majority-world countries empowered to negotiate legally binding agreements that are workable and achievable, whether it be halting and reversing deforestation, cutting carbon dioxide and methane emissions, drawing down coal use and addressing other threats to our future such as ocean acidification and deoxygenation.

    These agreements can then be signed off by world leaders without the need for the hype, grandstanding and false hope now associated with COP process pronouncements.

    We are witnessing a great bonfire of our heritage. Things are being lost that have not yet been found. We need to find them before they, and we, are gone.

    Robert Sandford holds the Global Water Futures Chair in Water and Climate Security at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, based at McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Legal Recognition of East African Sign Languages Key Towards Inclusion

    Legal Recognition of East African Sign Languages Key Towards Inclusion

    [ad_1]

    The United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD) require the governments to remove all barriers to information access – including those faced by Deaf persons. Credit: UNCRPD
    • Opinion by Timothy Egwelu (kampala)
    • Inter Press Service

    KAMPALA, Nov 30 (IPS) – Since the onset of the Covid19 pandemic, at least two deaf people were shot and killed in Uganda by state law enforcement officers. Their ‘crime’ was being deaf and uneducated. Their inability to hear or comprehend Covid19 containment measures communicated in English led to their death.

    This is despite the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD) and its reporting mechanisms requiring the governments to remove all barriers to information access – including those faced by Deaf persons. Deaf people are a linguistic minority – with sign language being their primary language of communication. In Uganda, 1 in 30 people are deaf.

    Kenya and Uganda have both taken initial steps to legally recognize sign language in the Constitution and have begun to include sign language in official communications. Kenya, for example, has expanded healthcare services by providing interpreters in hospitals. But the fact that deaf people and their issues are still regarded a minority and neglected is all the proof we need to show that we have a long way to go.

    Countries in the East African community must redouble their efforts to implement their inclusion laws, and legally recognize their sign languages in all sectors. Additionally, they must take on the costs of sign language interpretation in public sectors. This will be a big step towards building the inclusive East African community that we all seek. Until then, we in the Deaf community, continue to suffer discrimination.

    As a first step, we must ensure that sign language interpreters play an essential part in economic, social and political events, so that deaf persons can actively and meaningfully participate public life. Many people assume that all deaf persons understand advanced written grammar. This is not the case, as English (or any other language) and Sign Language grammar are distinct.

    To aid deaf persons in deciphering spoken and written language, sign language interpreters are needed. Nonetheless, their services are expensive, costing an average of $40 daily for these services. Consider this alongside the fact that 41% of Ugandans live on less than $1.90 a day. These services are indeed out of reach for majority of the deaf and hard of hearing community in the country.

    We’re seeing some progress. In Uganda, there have been sustained television campaigns on the need to expand access to information and services through sign language. It is envisaged that through this campaign, more Ugandans will be aware of their rights and that it will in turn move political decision makers to speed up the approval of the Draft Guidelines to Television Access by the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance. These will provide structures towards implementation.

    The other EAC countries are yet to officially recognize their sign languages. This results in the perpetuation of human rights exclusions and abuses of deaf persons. These countries must therefore fulfill their obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which promotes the full integration of persons with disabilities in societies.

    While it could be argued that there are indeed legal and policy frameworks in Uganda and the EAC countries that ensure access to information; this largely remains on paper and is not in practice, particularly for deaf persons. Consider that healthcare facilities, educational institutions and government offices have inaccessible formats of information and a lack of sign language interpreters. Additionally, television – both for information and entertainment purposes, is largely exclusive to the hearing world.

    Additionally, consider the value and importance of Sign language interpretation of court proceedings to an accused Deaf person. Certainly, interpretation is the only means of ensuring proper understanding and participation in the trial, yet it is not always readily available. Access to justice has been denied to many deaf persons in many unreported cases. Deaf persons are therefore largely sidelined and suffer widespread injustices.

    Countries in the EAC should therefore urgently shift towards implementation of their national and international laws on inclusion. They must legally recognize their sign languages and mainstream them into all sectors. Additionally, they must take on the costs of sign language interpretation in public sectors. This will be a big step towards building the inclusive East African community that we all seek. Until then, we in the Deaf community, continue to suffer discrimination.

    Timothy is a Deaf lawyer and a disability inclusion specialist in Uganda. He is an Aspen New Voices 2022 Fellow and founder of Stein Law and Advocacy for the Deaf.

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Maturation Of The Lightning Network: Growing Up By Going Vertical

    Maturation Of The Lightning Network: Growing Up By Going Vertical

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Roy Sheinfeld, the cofounder and CEO of Breez, a Lightning Network mobile app. A version of this article was originally published on Medium.

    It’s almost tautologically true that specialization within a social system increases with sophistication. In fact, increasing specialization could be one way to define social sophistication.

    Example One: 

    Our global society is pretty sophisticated. I know how to create products, ace a trivia contest about “The Wire” and find the best shawarma joints in Tel-Aviv, but I have no idea how to knit, design an efficient photovoltaic cell or where to go rock climbing around Maputo. We’re all experts at something, learning more and more about less and less.

    [ad_2]

    Roy Sheinfeld

    Source link

  • Structural Adjustment: How The IMF And World Bank Repress Poor Countries And Funnel Their Resources To Rich Ones

    Structural Adjustment: How The IMF And World Bank Repress Poor Countries And Funnel Their Resources To Rich Ones

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Alex Gladstein, chief strategy officer of the Human Rights Foundation and author of “Check Your Financial Privilege.”

    I. The Shrimp Fields

    “Everything is gone.”

    –Kolyani Mondal

    Fifty-two years ago, Cyclone Bhola killed an estimated 1 million people in coastal Bangladesh. It is, to this day, the deadliest tropical cyclone in recorded history. Local and international authorities knew well the catastrophic risks of such storms: in the 1960s, regional officials had built a massive array of dikes to protect the coastline and open up more territory for farming. But in the 1980s after the assassination of independence leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, foreign influence pushed a new autocratic Bangladeshi regime to change course. Concern for human life was dismissed and the public’s protection against storms was weakened, all in order to boost exports to repay debt.

    [ad_2]

    Alex Gladstein

    Source link

  • Why I’ve Settled On The Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

    Why I’ve Settled On The Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Arman The Parman, a Bitcoin educator passionate about privacy.

    Over many years, I have tinkered with various Bitcoin wallets and mentored many people to hold their private keys securely. I settled on “Electrum Desktop Wallet” as my favorite and most versatile software wallet.

    In this essay, I will outline some of Electrum’s features, and my likes and dislikes. This is not a detailed guide on how to use it and get the most out of it. I also won’t be going into why you should hold your own Bitcoin keys; it’s assumed you know and desire to do this, but if you need to know why it’s essential, please take a look at “Six Reasons To Withdraw Your Bitcoin From Exchanges.”

    [ad_2]

    Arman The Parman

    Source link

  • Visiting El Salvador, It’s Clear That Bukele’s Bitcoin Country Is Neither Utopian, Nor Totalitarian

    Visiting El Salvador, It’s Clear That Bukele’s Bitcoin Country Is Neither Utopian, Nor Totalitarian

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Shinobi, a self-taught educator in the Bitcoin space and tech-oriented Bitcoin podcast host.

    I recently spent a week in El Salvador to attend Adopting Bitcoin and decided it might be worthwhile to summarize my perception of things having actually had the chance to visit the country myself.

    Since the announcement of the Bitcoin legal tender law in 2021, the topic of El Salvador has been a deeply divisive one in this space. On one hand, you have people blindly cheering on President Nayib Bukele and treating all criticism as FUD and misinformation generated simply to attack Bitcoin and the use of it. On the other hand, you have people blindly decrying him as a dictator and violator of human rights and treating anything positive he is accomplishing for his country as irrelevant in the face of his disregard for law.

    [ad_2]

    Shinobi

    Source link

  • 20 dividend stocks with high yields that have become more attractive right now

    20 dividend stocks with high yields that have become more attractive right now

    [ad_1]

    Income-seeking investors are looking at an opportunity to scoop up shares of real estate investment trusts. Stocks in that asset class have become more attractive as prices have fallen and cash flow is improving.

    Below is a broad screen of REITs that have high dividend yields and are also expected to generate enough excess cash in 2023 to enable increases in dividend payouts.

    REIT prices may turn a corner in 2023

    REITs distribute most of their income to shareholders to maintain their tax-advantaged status. But the group is cyclical, with pressure on share prices when interest rates rise, as they have this year at an unprecedented scale. A slowing growth rate for the group may have also placed a drag on the stocks.

    And now, with talk that the Federal Reserve may begin to temper its cycle of interest-rate increases, we may be nearing the time when REIT prices rise in anticipation of an eventual decline in interest rates. The market always looks ahead, which means long-term investors who have been waiting on the sidelines to buy higher-yielding income-oriented investments may have to make a move soon.

    During an interview on Nov 28, James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and a member of the Federal Open Market Committee, discussed the central bank’s cycle of interest-rate increases meant to reduce inflation.

    When asked about the potential timing of the Fed’s “terminal rate” (the peak federal funds rate for this cycle), Bullard said: “Generally speaking, I have advocated that sooner is better, that you do want to get to the right level of the policy rate for the current data and the current situation.”

    Fed’s Bullard says in MarketWatch interview that markets are underpricing the chance of still-higher rates

    In August we published this guide to investing in REITs for income. Since the data for that article was pulled on Aug. 24, the S&P 500
    SPX,
    -0.29%
    has declined 4% (despite a 10% rally from its 2022 closing low on Oct. 12), but the benchmark index’s real estate sector has declined 13%.

    REITs can be placed broadly into two categories. Mortgage REITs lend money to commercial or residential borrowers and/or invest in mortgage-backed securities, while equity REITs own property and lease it out.

    The pressure on share prices can be greater for mortgage REITs, because the mortgage-lending business slows as interest rates rise. In this article we are focusing on equity REITs.

    Industry numbers

    The National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (Nareit) reported that third-quarter funds from operations (FFO) for U.S.-listed equity REITs were up 14% from a year earlier. To put that number in context, the year-over-year growth rate of quarterly FFO has been slowing — it was 35% a year ago. And the third-quarter FFO increase compares to a 23% increase in earnings per share for the S&P 500 from a year earlier, according to FactSet.

    The NAREIT report breaks out numbers for 12 categories of equity REITs, and there is great variance in the growth numbers, as you can see here.

    FFO is a non-GAAP measure that is commonly used to gauge REITs’ capacity for paying dividends. It adds amortization and depreciation (noncash items) back to earnings, while excluding gains on the sale of property. Adjusted funds from operations (AFFO) goes further, netting out expected capital expenditures to maintain the quality of property investments.

    The slowing FFO growth numbers point to the importance of looking at REITs individually, to see if expected cash flow is sufficient to cover dividend payments.

    Screen of high-yielding equity REITs

    For 2022 through Nov. 28, the S&P 500 has declined 17%, while the real estate sector has fallen 27%, excluding dividends.

    Over the very long term, through interest-rate cycles and the liquidity-driven bull market that ended this year, equity REITs have fared well, with an average annual return of 9.3% for 20 years, compared to an average return of 9.6% for the S&P 500, both with dividends reinvested, according to FactSet.

    This performance might surprise some investors, when considering the REITs’ income focus and the S&P 500’s heavy weighting for rapidly growing technology companies.

    For a broad screen of equity REITs, we began with the Russell 3000 Index
    RUA,
    -0.04%    ,
    which represents 98% of U.S. companies by market capitalization.

    We then narrowed the list to 119 equity REITs that are followed by at least five analysts covered by FactSet for which AFFO estimates are available.

    If we divide the expected 2023 AFFO by the current share price, we have an estimated AFFO yield, which can be compared with the current dividend yield to see if there is expected “headroom” for dividend increases.

    For example, if we look at Vornado Realty Trust
    VNO,
    +1.03%    ,
    the current dividend yield is 8.56%. Based on the consensus 2023 AFFO estimate among analysts polled by FactSet, the expected AFFO yield is only 7.25%. This doesn’t mean that Vornado will cut its dividend and it doesn’t even mean the company won’t raise its payout next year. But it might make it less likely to do so.

    Among the 119 equity REITs, 104 have expected 2023 AFFO headroom of at least 1.00%.

    Here are the 20 equity REITs from our screen with the highest current dividend yields that have at least 1% expected AFFO headroom:

    Company

    		 Ticker

    		 Dividend yield

    		 Estimated 2023 AFFO yield

    		 Estimated “headroom”

    		 Market cap. ($mil)

    		 Main concentration
    Brandywine Realty Trust

    		 BDN,
    +2.12%         		11.52%

    		 12.82%

    		 1.30%

    		 $1,132

    		 Offices
    Sabra Health Care REIT Inc.

    		 SBRA,
    +2.41%         		9.70%

    		 12.04%

    		 2.34%

    		 $2,857

    		 Health care
    Medical Properties Trust Inc.

    		 MPW,
    +2.53%         		9.18%

    		 11.46%

    		 2.29%

    		 $7,559

    		 Health care
    SL Green Realty Corp.

    		 SLG,
    +2.25%         		9.16%

    		 10.43%

    		 1.28%

    		 $2,619

    		 Offices
    Hudson Pacific Properties Inc.

    		 HPP,
    +1.41%         		9.12%

    		 12.69%

    		 3.57%

    		 $1,546

    		 Offices
    Omega Healthcare Investors Inc.

    		 OHI,
    +1.23%         		9.05%

    		 10.13%

    		 1.08%

    		 $6,936

    		 Health care
    Global Medical REIT Inc.

    		 GMRE,
    +2.55%         		8.75%

    		 10.59%

    		 1.84%

    		 $629

    		 Health care
    Uniti Group Inc.

    		 UNIT,
    +0.55%         		8.30%

    		 25.00%

    		 16.70%

    		 $1,715

    		 Communications infrastructure
    EPR Properties

    		 EPR,
    +0.86%         		8.19%

    		 12.24%

    		 4.05%

    		 $3,023

    		 Leisure properties
    CTO Realty Growth Inc.

    		 CTO,
    +2.22%         		7.51%

    		 9.34%

    		 1.83%

    		 $381

    		 Retail
    Highwoods Properties Inc.

    		 HIW,
    +0.99%         		6.95%

    		 8.82%

    		 1.86%

    		 $3,025

    		 Offices
    National Health Investors Inc.

    		 NHI,
    +2.59%         		6.75%

    		 8.32%

    		 1.57%

    		 $2,313

    		 Senior housing
    Douglas Emmett Inc.

    		 DEI,
    +0.87%         		6.74%

    		 10.30%

    		 3.55%

    		 $2,920

    		 Offices
    Outfront Media Inc.

    		 OUT,
    +0.89%         		6.68%

    		 11.74%

    		 5.06%

    		 $2,950

    		 Billboards
    Spirit Realty Capital Inc.

    		 SRC,
    +1.15%         		6.62%

    		 9.07%

    		 2.45%

    		 $5,595

    		 Retail
    Broadstone Net Lease Inc.

    		 BNL,
    -0.30%         		6.61%

    		 8.70%

    		 2.08%

    		 $2,879

    		 Industial
    Armada Hoffler Properties Inc.

    		 AHH,
    +0.00%         		6.38%

    		 7.78%

    		 1.41%

    		 $807

    		 Offices
    Innovative Industrial Properties Inc.

    		 IIPR,
    +1.42%         		6.24%

    		 7.53%

    		 1.29%

    		 $3,226

    		 Health care
    Simon Property Group Inc.

    		 SPG,
    +1.03%         		6.22%

    		 9.55%

    		 3.33%

    		 $37,847

    		 Retail
    LTC Properties Inc.

    		 LTC,
    +1.42%         		5.99%

    		 7.60%

    		 1.60%

    		 $1,541

    		 Senior housing
    Source: FactSet

    Click on the tickers for more about each company. You should read Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information for free on the MarketWatch quote page.

    The list includes each REIT’s main property investment type. However, many REITs are highly diversified. The simplified categories on the table may not cover all of their investment properties.

    Knowing what a REIT invests in is part of the research you should do on your own before buying any individual stock. For arbitrary examples, some investors may wish to steer clear of exposure to certain areas of retail or hotels, or they may favor health-care properties.

    Largest REITs

    Several of the REITs that passed the screen have relatively small market capitalizations. You might be curious to see how the most widely held REITs fared in the screen. So here’s another list of the 20 largest U.S. REITs among the 119 that passed the first cut, sorted by market cap as of Nov. 28:

    Company

    		 Ticker

    		 Dividend yield

    		 Estimated 2023 AFFO yield

    		 Estimated “headroom”

    		 Market cap. ($mil)

    		 Main concentration
    Prologis Inc.

    		 PLD,
    +1.63%         		2.84%

    		 4.36%

    		 1.52%

    		 $102,886

    		 Warehouses and logistics
    American Tower Corp.

    		 AMT,
    +0.75%         		2.66%

    		 4.82%

    		 2.16%

    		 $99,593

    		 Communications infrastructure
    Equinix Inc.

    		 EQIX,
    +0.80%         		1.87%

    		 4.79%

    		 2.91%

    		 $61,317

    		 Data centers
    Crown Castle Inc.

    		 CCI,
    +0.93%         		4.55%

    		 5.42%

    		 0.86%

    		 $59,553

    		 Wireless Infrastructure
    Public Storage

    		 PSA,
    +0.19%         		2.77%

    		 5.35%

    		 2.57%

    		 $50,680

    		 Self-storage
    Realty Income Corp.

    		 O,
    +0.72%         		4.82%

    		 6.46%

    		 1.64%

    		 $38,720

    		 Retail
    Simon Property Group Inc.

    		 SPG,
    +1.03%         		6.22%

    		 9.55%

    		 3.33%

    		 $37,847

    		 Retail
    VICI Properties Inc.

    		 VICI,
    +0.81%         		4.69%

    		 6.21%

    		 1.52%

    		 $32,013

    		 Leisure properties
    SBA Communications Corp. Class A

    		 SBAC,
    +0.27%         		0.97%

    		 4.33%

    		 3.36%

    		 $31,662

    		 Communications infrastructure
    Welltower Inc.

    		 WELL,
    +3.06%         		3.66%

    		 4.76%

    		 1.10%

    		 $31,489

    		 Health care
    Digital Realty Trust Inc.

    		 DLR,
    +0.63%         		4.54%

    		 6.18%

    		 1.64%

    		 $30,903

    		 Data centers
    Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc.

    		 ARE,
    +1.49%         		3.17%

    		 4.87%

    		 1.70%

    		 $24,451

    		 Offices
    AvalonBay Communities Inc.

    		 AVB,
    +0.98%         		3.78%

    		 5.69%

    		 1.90%

    		 $23,513

    		 Multifamily residential
    Equity Residential

    		 EQR,
    +1.46%         		4.02%

    		 5.36%

    		 1.34%

    		 $23,503

    		 Multifamily residential
    Extra Space Storage Inc.

    		 EXR,
    +0.31%         		3.93%

    		 5.83%

    		 1.90%

    		 $20,430

    		 Self-storage
    Invitation Homes Inc.

    		 INVH,
    +2.15%         		2.84%

    		 5.12%

    		 2.28%

    		 $18,948

    		 Single-family residental
    Mid-America Apartment Communities Inc.

    		 MAA,
    +1.83%         		3.16%

    		 5.18%

    		 2.02%

    		 $18,260

    		 Multifamily residential
    Ventas Inc.

    		 VTR,
    +2.22%         		4.07%

    		 5.95%

    		 1.88%

    		 $17,660

    		 Senior housing
    Sun Communities Inc.

    		 SUI,
    +2.12%         		2.51%

    		 4.81%

    		 2.30%

    		 $17,346

    		 Multifamily residential
    Source: FactSet

    Simon Property Group Inc.
    SPG,
    +1.03%
    is the only REIT to make both lists.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Can Asia and the Pacific Get on Track to Net Zero?

    Can Asia and the Pacific Get on Track to Net Zero?

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana (bangkok, thailand)
    • Inter Press Service

    BANGKOK, Thailand, Nov 29 (IPS) – The recent climate talks in Egypt have left us with a sobering reality: The window for maintaining global warming to 1.5 degrees is closing fast and what is on the table currently is insufficient to avert some of the worst potential effects of climate change. The Nationally Determined Contribution targets of Asian and Pacific countries will result in a 16 per centincrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 from the 2010 levels.

    Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana

    The Sharm-el Sheikh Implementation Plan and the package of decisions taken at COP27 are a reaffirmation of actions that could deliver the net-zero resilient world our countries aspire to. The historic decision to establish a Loss and Damage Fund is an important step towards climate justice and building trust among countries.

    But they are not enough to help us arrive at a better future without, what the UN Secretary General calls, a “giant leap on climate ambition”. Carbon neutrality needs to at the heart of national development strategies and reflected in public and private investment decisions. And it needs to cascade down to the sustainable pathways in each sector of the economy.

    Accelerate energy transition

    At the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), we are working with regional and national stakeholders on these transformational pathways. Moving away from the brown economy is imperative, not only because emissions are rising but also because dependence on fossil fuels has left economies struggling with price volatility and energy insecurity.

    A clear road map is the needed springboard for an inclusive and just energy transition. We have been working with countries to develop scenarios for such a shift through National Roadmaps, demonstrating that a different energy future is possible and viable with the political will and sincere commitment to action of the public and private sectors.

    The changeover to renewables also requires concurrent improvements in grid infrastructure, especially cross-border grids. The Regional Road Map on Power System Connectivity provides us the platform to work with member States toward an interconnected grid, including through the development of the necessary regulatory frameworks for to integrate power systems and mobilize investments in grid infrastructure. The future of energy security will be determined by the ability to develop green grids and trade renewable-generated electricity across our borders.

    Green the rides

    The move to net-zero carbon will not be complete without greening the transport sector. In Asia and the Pacific transport is primarily powered by fossil fuels and as a result accounted for 24 per cent of total carbon emissions by 2018.

    Energy efficiency improvements and using more electric vehicles are the most effective measures to reduce carbon emissions by as much as 60 per cent in 2050 compared to 2005 levels. The Regional Action Programme for Sustainable Transport Development allows us to work with countries to implement and cooperate on priorities for low-carbon transport, including electric mobility. Our work with the Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Cross-border Paperless Trade also is helping to make commerce more efficient and climate-smart, a critical element for the transition in the energy and transport sectors.

    Adapting to a riskier future

    Even with mitigation measures in place, our economy and people will not be safe without a holistic risk management system. And it needs to be one that prevents communities from being blindsided by cascading climate disasters.

    We are working with partners to deepen the understanding of such cascading risks and to help develop preparedness strategies for this new reality, such as the implementation of the ASEAN Regional Plan of Action for Adaptation to Drought.

    Make finance available where it matters the most

    Finance and investment are uniquely placed to propel the transitions needed. The past five years have seen thematic bonds in our region grow tenfold. Private finance is slowly aligning with climate needs. The new Loss and Damage Fund and its operation present new hopes for financing the most vulnerable. However, climate finance is not happening at the speed and scale needed. It needs to be accessible to developing economies in times of need.

    Innovative financing instruments need to be developed and scaled up, from debt-for-climate swaps to SDG bonds, some of which ESCAP is helping to develop in the Pacific and in Cambodia. Growing momentum in the business sector will need to be sustained. The Asia-Pacific Green Deal for Business by the ESCAP Sustainable Business Network (ESBN) is important progress. We are also working with the High-level Climate Champions to bring climate-aligned investment opportunities closer to private financiers.

    Lock in higher ambition and accelerate implementation

    Climate actions in Asia and the Pacific matter for global success and well-being. The past two years has been a grim reminder that conflicts in one continent create hunger in another, and that emissions somewhere push sea levels higher everywhere. Never has our prosperity been more dependent on collective actions and cooperation.

    Our countries are taking note. Member States meeting at the seventh session of the Committee on Environment and Development, which opens today (29 November) are seeking consensus on the regional cooperation needed and priorities for climate action such as oceans, ecosystem and air pollution. We hope that the momentum begun at COP27 and the Committee will be continued at the seventy-ninth session of the Commission as it will hone in on the accelerators for climate action.

    In this era of heightened risks and shared prosperity, only regional, multilateral solidarity and genuine ambition that match with the new climate reality unfolding around us — along with bold climate action — are the only way to secure a future where the countries of Asia and the Pacific can prosper.

    Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • UN Assessed Contributions Needed to Generate Core Funding for Climate Loss & Damage

    UN Assessed Contributions Needed to Generate Core Funding for Climate Loss & Damage

    [ad_1]

    After days of intense negotiations in Sharm el-Sheikh, countries at the latest UN Climate Change Conference, COP27, reached agreement on an outcome that established a funding mechanism to compensate vulnerable nations for ‘loss and damage’ from climate-induced disasters. 20 November 2022 Credit: United Nations
    • Opinion by Inge Kaul (berlin)
    • Inter Press Service

    BERLIN, Nov 29 (IPS) – For decades, there have been non-conclusive deliberations regarding how the international community could support poor and vulnerable countries in their efforts to cope with and recover from the havoc wreaked on their territory by the ill-effects of global warming such as severe droughts, floods, storms, or rising sea levels.

    At the COP27 climate summit, this issue figured for the first time as a separate item on the agenda; and, as one of their very last-minute decisions, delegations even agreed to establish a dedicated loss and damage fund (LDF). However, the question of how to operationalize, notably resource the fund was left open.

    A “transitional committee” is to be created to examine possible funding options and report to COP28, which could then, eventually, decide on the LDF’s operationalization.

    Remembering the many press photos showing the despair written into the faces of people, whose houses and fields were destroyed by floods, or the blank stares of those sitting next to the cadavers of their cattle killed by severe drought conditions,

    I feel that business as usual—namely, taking it easy in delivering on funding promises (as we have seen it in the case of the $ 100 billion annual climate-finance promise) — would be an extremely immoral and unethical behavior in the present case.

    Therefore, let’s waste no time and start to explore where one could find money fit for the purpose of loss and damage support.

    In the following, I argue that only one – still to be established – source will generate on a relatively reliable and predictable manner the longer-term stream of public finance required, as a minimum, for creating a solid basis of LDF core funding.

    The funding source to be agreed and established as a matter of highest urgency are UN assessed contributions for climate security.

    Money fit for the purpose of loss and damage support

    However, at the outset, it is perhaps important to clarify that support for loss and damage should not be confounded with humanitarian assistance delivered as a prompt crisis-response measure.

    Disaster may strike countries haphazardly, irrespective of whether they are poor or rich, vulnerable or not. All countries may need or, at least, somehow benefit from immediate and fast-disbursing, short-term humanitarian assistance in cash or kind.

    How best to organize such short-term humanitarian assistance is also an important issue that deserves more attention. However, it is an issue beyond the scope of this article.

    Therefore, let’s now turn to the specific issue of what type of external support could be most useful for “climate victims”, notably poor and vulnerable countries struggling to rebuild their communities and economies.

    An entity such as the newly established LDF and the money that, one day, it might have at its disposal, are governance tools. Like any other tools they should be fit for the purpose at hand.

    Considering for now mainly the core funding that the LDF needs to have, it should perhaps have three key characteristics, namely be: (1) public finance; (2) patient, that is, designed for the longer-term; and (3) relatively predictable in its availability.

    The reasons are that, typically, a country’s vulnerability to severe climate events is a complex multi-dimensional phenomenon to which both structural factors (e.g., the countries geographic position and size) and non-structural factors (such as its development level) contribute.

    Thus, by implication, meaningful loss-and-damage support is likely to be required for several years, maybe, even for a decade or more. This should not come as a surprise, because even in developed countries rebuilding efforts have often been a lengthy process.

    Moreover, in the case of small-island developing countries, it could even be that parts of the population need to be resettled to start their life anew.

    Initially, patient, predictable public finance may constitute the most important source of funding. As the rebuilding process advances, the public funds could also play an important role in helping to mobilize other resource inflows, including private investments.

    Or, they could be twinned with adaptation finance and other types of climate finance, as well as official development assistance.

    Making the case for UN assessed contributions for climate-security, including loss and damage support

    By now, there exists broad-based agreement that our security today depends on more than the security of our countries’ external borders and on more than the control of within-country conflicts and violence.

    As US President Joe Biden, noted in his statement to COP27, military security today is only one dimension of our security, next to climate and food security; and, as COVID-19 taught us, next to global health security.

    The security threats we are facing are global in their reach; they tie us together in a web of manifold interdependencies. They require all hands-on deck, or no one will be secure. The United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) is, therefore, correct in pushing for a “Climate Solidarity Pact.”

    Thus, it is timely to ask: Why do we have, within the UN, only an established system of assessed contributions to support efforts aimed at keeping and restoring military security? Why not also assessed contributions – a solidarity-based pact – to climate security?

    Among the reasons that strongly speak for this financing option are several. First, such contributions could be introduced for, say, an initial period of 20 years, subject, of course, to regular monitoring of their functioning and impact.

    Evidently, they would provide the type of reliable and predictable long-term public finance that the LDF needs.

    Second, agreement on a UN funding scale for climate security would help end the present continuous tussle among countries over who should contribute how much. The UN assessment scale for determining individual countries’ contributions to climate security would be based on a joint decision by member states.

    Besides income (capacity to pay) one would, in the present case, certainly also consider past and current per-capita emission levels and other relevant factors.

    Many aspects of the proposed funding source still need further élaboration and consultations. However, let’s start at the beginning and encourage a world-wide dialogue on the pros and cons of the following issues.

    Should we: (1) consider climate security, notably that of vulnerable countries, as a global security issue; and (2) grant climate security the same financing privilege that military security enjoys, namely, to benefit from assessed contributions paid by all UN member states according to a formula that aims at promoting climate security and justice?

    Why not ?

    Inge Kaul is a fellow at the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link