Geosphere June 17

GEOSHPERE St Albans School Geography Magazine June 2017

ThePopulationIssue Inside: Donald Trump’s Immigration Policies p2 Environmental Migration p6 New Green Cities p8 Overpopulation and Animal Rights p10 Migration Across the Mediterranean p12 Final Destination for a Refugee p14

Let the Deportations Begin…

Oliver Barrat-Johnson tackles Trump Despite nearly dividing a political party, damaging confidence in the U.S. electoral system and making countless racist and misogynistic comments throughout his campaign, as of 2:35 am GMT on November 9th “the Donald,” the protest candidate whose candidacy, just like his hair, was passed off as a joke, officially became the president elect of the United States.

However, this brief article isn’t to discuss the man himself but instead some of his rather controversial policies on immigration including his pledge to deport, “anyone who enters the U.S. illegally,” and the building of, “a great wall,” and how these proposals could impact migration and the consequences that they could have on U.S. An exceptionally b r i e f overview on U.S. immigration policy:

The foundation of Trump’s campaign echoes this approach to migration by promising to restrict immigration severely. These promises included deporting the majority of the 11.1 million undocumented immigrants who are illegally in the U.S.A which make up 3.5% of the population and of whom 5.3 million are Mexican. So how is Trump going to achieve this?

The “Great” Wall Trump has pledged to build a “beautiful” wall along the border with Mexico. At around 2000 miles long, it is estimated that the wall will cost $16 million per mile putting the total cost somewhere between $15 billion to $25 billion. This is mainly due to the fact that the rough terrain of the border itself makes the construction process very difficult

“I will build a great wall – and nobody

builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

Since the early 19th century the issue of who to let into the U.S. and who to refuse entry to has been heavily debated and although the U.S. has now admitted entry to immigrants from almost all nations, U.S. immigration policy has been littered with bills and acts banning whole demograph-

2

ics from coming to the land of the free. This includes the infamous, “Chinese Exclusion Act,” in 1882 which banned Chinese migrants and astonishingly this wasn’t repealed until 1943.

Donald Trump and time consuming in terms of transportation of concrete etc.

Moreover, this sum doesn’t take into account the $750 million annual maintenance fee, or the costs of actually manning the wall.

So the extraordinary cost of the

number, allowing these migrants to work legally and therefore have a life in the United States.

However, DACA isn’t technically a law and so Trump could simply revoke it. To make matters worse Trump could then tell the Department of Homeland Security to use information from DACA, such as the location of these undocumented worker to target migrants who are technically illegally living in the U.S.

wall, combined with the fact that it is impractical, as it would reduce visibility for border control personnel, unlike a mesh fence, means that it is unlikely to be constructed. So in the end it is highly likely that a fence will be erected instead, as with Mexico understandably being adamant that they would not finance the wall, a wall would be too much of a burden for the tax payer.

Subsequently, the wall is unlikely to be built and even immigration experts hinted that the wall would be nothing more than a political statement, as they believe that the wall would do little to stop a major proportion of new arrivals. This is because historically an increase in enforcement on immigration without the U.S. Congress creating new ways for migrants to legally work in lower skilled jobs, causes labour shortages in the primary sector and so this availability of low skilled work encourages individuals to remain in America after crossing the border.

So, although the vision of Trump’s tall, impenetrable, brick and mortar wall may never come into fruition, the promise of the wall itself is very significant as it represents something far more powerful. It is a political metaphor which appealed to voters by physically embody-

ing his hard and serious stance on immigration. Subsequently, when he becomes president his power to change U.S. immigration through policies rather than cement should not be underestimated.

Changing legislation on immigration

This would mean that these migrants would initially lose their work permits and then possibly be deported, depending on how true Trump stays to his campaign promises. This, combined with the fact that Trump will also have the power to alter the objectives of the Department of Homeland Security, means that even more illegal and undocumented immigrants could be targeted and subject to sudden deportation. This could include undocumented migrants who are living peacefully and/or those who are

Firstly, Trump has the tools to undo nearly all of the legal framework which Obama has tried to put in place to protect “Day one, my first hour in office, those millions of illegal people are gone.” Donald Trump immigrants from mass deportation. When John Sandweg, the parents of children born in former acting director of the the U.S, who were not a priority U.S. Immigration and Customs for deportation under Obama’s Enforcement (ICE) officer was time in office. questioned on this subject he However just like the Obama stated how, “Trump has tremenadministration, Trump has dous flexibility to reverse course expressed how he would inion all those policies.” This is tially target those with criminal because as president Trump has records, which the nonpartisan the power to issue new direcMigration Policy Institute estitives to the ICE. mates includes 820,000 illegal The policy which is most at risk migrants. Although Trump has is the Deferred Action for Child- promised to do so at a far more hood Arrivals program, or DACA, rapid pace stating, “day one, my which was set up in 2012 under first hour in office, those people Obama to give protection to hun- are gone.” This is obviously an dreds of thousands of people extremely unrealistic time frame who came into the U.S. as chil- but with immigration being so dren. The program has enabled pivotal to his campaign and these migrants to apply for a migrants with criminal records work permit and a social security being the easiest group to force

3

out of the U.S. it is highly likely that Trump will stay true to this promise.

Also, as Trump has proposed giving local state police authorities greater power to deal with illegal migrants The American Action Forum, has estimated you need more officers, more that to deport 11.1 million illegal immigrants guns and more would take 20 years. officer training schemes which could easily So overall, it is unclear as to cost in the region of several hunwhat scale these promised dred million dollars. Then there mass deportations will be on. is also the social issue of having more armed police on the streets, although that is a completely separate issue.

As ultimately in light of the economic costs of mass deportation nobody is certain about what type of migrants are at risk as we don’t know to what extent a Trump administration will focus on criminal undocumented migrants rather than the more common family living in the U.S. illegally. Although with 79% of Trump supporters classing illegal immigration as a, “very big,” problem in the U.S. and with 37% of Trump supporters believing that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay legally, it will be highly likely the rate of deportations will increase in order to satisfy his voters.

The cost of wide-scale deportation However, mass scale deportation would be extremely expensive and time consuming. Firstly, in order to carry out the operation Trump has proposed to triple the number of ICE’s workers to around 21,000 workers.

4

Cooperation and Development, immigrants expanded the U.S. workforce by roughly 47% between 1994 and 2014. Ultimately immigrants are a source of cheap labour in the U.S. which enable prices of domestic goods to remain low and this increases the wealth of all U.S. citizens by increasing the real value of their wages. Mass deportation would therefore be detrimental to the economy as some industries are dependent on undocumented workers. For example, according to the Department of Agriculture, roughly half of all crop workers in

Moreover, due to the relaxed Mass deportation would be detrimental stance on illegal immigrants to the economy as some industries are that Obama dependent on undocumented workers. took over his eight years in office a large majority of illegal the U.S. are undocumented. As a immigrants have been in the U.S. result, if mass scale deportation for over 5 years and so legally were to occur the price of essenthey are entitled to a hearing in tial goods like fruit and vegetacourt before any action is taken. bles would rise, so consumers This system doesn’t have the will have less disposable income funding to cope with millions and therefore a reduced standof migrants coming through, so ard of living. and the impact of unless Congress supports it, the shrinking the labour force by 11.1 rapid deportations which Trump million would reduce real GDP promised are unlikely to happen. by $1.6 trillion.

The American Action Forum, has estimated that in order to deport Refugees the 11.1 million illegal immigrants, Another aspect of immigration it would take 20 years rather which the president has conthan the 18 months which Trump trol over is the number of refuproposed and it would cost the gees allowed into the U.S. each government around $400 bilyear and from which countries lion. All of this in light of the fact they originate from. One feathat the US government debt is ture of Trump’s campaign was predicted to be above $20 trilto tighten national security as lion when Trump becomes preshe believed that terrorists could ident in January of 2017, is why enter the U.S. via the Syrian many believe that mass deportaresettlement program which he tions won’t occur. called a, “Trojan Horse,” despite the 18-month screening process The economic being extremely thorough and consequences one of the most difficult paths into the United States. SubseImmigration is a source of ecoquently Trump has promised that nomic vitality, as according to he would temporarily halt immithe Organisation for Economic

gration from Libya and Syria.

Over the past five years the U.S. has accepted around 12,000 Syrian refugees who, in the words of Trump himself, “are definitely, in many cases, ISIS-

killed by a Syrian refugee in a terrorist attack at around 1 in 3.64 billion. To put this into perspective in the United states you are 48 times more likely to die from an asteroid collision.

So, despite Syrian migrants statistically not the most vulnerable; 67% are women and being terrorists, children. behind all the rhetoric Trump has played on aligned.” However, the claims of the serious fears amongst AmerSyrian refugees being terrorists icans about national security is just false. Firstly, the refugees and terrorism. As a result, he has who are coming to the U.S. are vowed to deport all of the 12,000 the most vulnerable, 67% are Syrian refugees who currently women and children and many live in the U.S. saying, “If I win, are also victims of torture many they’re going back.” Although of whom have fled to escape this is rather extreme, I wouldn’t ISIS. This was proven in October be surprised if under Trump the of 2015 when an analysis by the number of refugees from so Migration Policy institute stated called “dangerous countries,” that of the 784,000 refugees fell to zero as he has the power that have entered the U.S. since to do this even though it underSeptember of 2001, just 3 or mines the American tradition of 0.00038% have been arrested accepting refugees in need. for planning terrorist activities.

Out of these two weren’t planConclusion ning an attack in the U.S. and the plans of the third were, “barely So, ultimately at this stage credible.” Overall this makes an nobody knows the extent to American’s chances of being which refugees will be denied

Refugees who are coming to the U.S. are

entry into the U.S. or the exact scale on which deportations will occur. This is mainly due to the fact that most of Trump’s statements throughout his campaign were false. The website PolitiFact, which aims to find the truth in media, randomly checked 77 of Trump’s claims and, “rated 76% of them mostly false, false or pants on fire,” the last of which would only be used a class in America but nonetheless it does show the extent of some of Trump’s outrageous claims.

Trump is already showing signs of recalling some of his more extreme promises, for example parts of the wall are fast becoming a fence and with a statement calling for a ban on all Muslims being removed from Trump’s campaign website on the 10th of November, nobody really knows how serious Trump’s promises are. However, there is very little doubt that Trump will harden immigration policy to improve national security in order to satisfy those who elected him, although only the future will tell.

5

Environmental Migration and Climate Change – The Future of Migration explored byJamie Scragg Currently, the vast majority of forced migration occurs because of war and conflict. But soon there will be a surge in the number of environmental migrants, due to climate change. The International Organisation for Migration has provisionally defined an environmental migrant as “persons or groups of persons who, for reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment… are obliged to leave their habitual homes”. Using this definition, it is clear that the changing and more extreme climates that will result from climate change will mean there are many more such migrants, which poses a big problem for the world as a whole, and LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries) and NICs (Newly Industrialised Countries) in particular. Although estimated numbers are disputed and unclear, the most widely accepted number of potential forced environmental/climate migrants is 200 million by 2050 – this is a scale Fiji Islands at risk from rising sea levels

6

never seen before.

It is important to note that forced migration due to environmental migration already occurs, but in smaller numbers. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that, as of 2009, over 20 million people had been displaced by climate change related issues. For example, the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, with a population of over 100,000, has made plans to evacuate the entire population to Fiji. Rising sea levels may well submerge all of the thirty-three atolls and islands that make up the country, but rising sea water has already caused environmental damage including contamination of groundwater and coral bleaching. The country has already bought twenty sq. km of land in Fiji, and has plans to “migrate with dignity” within the next five years.

There currently exists no legal recognition for environmental migrants. The 1951 Convention on Refugees affords no protection to those forced out by envi-

ronmental change and natural disasters, so there is no requirement for countries to help and assist environmental migrants in the same way as they have to ‘traditional’ refugees. This lack of legal protection means that states are unlikely to accept large numbers of migrants, unless the legal frameworks are updated, which too is unlikely. For example, a Kiribati man claimed in the New Zealand High Court, and later the Supreme Court, that he should be afforded the status on a ‘climate change refugee’ under the 1951 Convention, which he was denied. However, it is likely that the majority of environmental migrants will be internal migrants: moving from one place to another within a country, not between countries, so in reality, these legal issues may not need to be resolved.

The IOM has proposed three types of environmental migrants, and it is possible that each of these groups will be given different legal protections. Emergency migrants are defined as those who only move temporarily due

Flooding in Bangladesh

to a natural or environmental disaster, in order to “save their own lives”. This includes those fleeing from hurricanes, tornadoes and a lack of drinking water caused by drought. Climate change is likely to mean that there are more extreme weather events including hurricanes and drought, so there will be more emergency migrants in the future. Environmental forced migrants are those who have to leave due to deteriorating environmental conditions, such as deforestation and coastal deterioration (i.e. slow onset hazards). Residents of Kiribati and other such low-lying Pacific islands fall into this category. It has become much more common over recent years to not use “refugee” for these groups of people, due to the lack of legal protection afforded to them – doing so would be misleading and confusing. The final type of environmental migrants are environmentally motivated migrants.

For this group, migration is not a last resort, but they have decided to migrate due to environmental degradation, for example, those who migrate due to desertification causing their crop yields to fall. These definitions are not widely agreed upon, so it is likely they will change in the future.

It is already well established that MEDCs (More Economically Developed Countries) will, in all likelihood, suffer less from the consequences of climate change than LEDCs. LEDCs are therefore likely to bear the brunt

of environmental migration. For example, in Bangladesh, up to 15 million people could be forced to migrate by 2050 due to rising sea levels. Sea level rise will eliminate a large proportion of Bangladesh’s cultivated land; rice production is predicted to drop by 10% and wheat by 30% by 2050, as farming becomes uneconomical or simply impossible. As an LEDC/NIC (Newly Industrialised Country), Bangladesh is unable to afford the vast protective measures that would be needed, such as embankments and flood defences, and planting swathes of forest in flood prone areas on the coast and river banks. As a result, up to ten million people will be forced to relocate within the country in the next 40 years, according to a 2012 study.

The Netherlands already has extensive protection against sea level rises and flooding, and can afford greater protection if necessary. It already has protection against 1-in-10,000 year flood events, and there are proposals to upgrade this to 1-in-100,000 year protection, which will cost up to 0.2% of annual GDP to build and maintain – a cost that only MEDCs can afford to bear.

As a result, it is much less likely to see large scale migration due to the loss of fertile land, despite half of the country lying less than one metre above sea level.

larly as there currently exists no legal recognition of environmental migrants/refugees. According to Walter Kälin, the UN Special Representative for the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, the “main challenge” is to “clarify or even develop the normative framework applicable to persons crossing internationally recognised state borders” because of natural disasters or climate change. In particular, the responsibilities that states have to relocate and resettle envi-

The Netherlands relies on drainage dykes to keep it from flooding

ronmental refugees, need to be defined in international law.

Currently, Sweden and Finland have legislation that recognises environmental migrants as people “in need of protection”. However, this particular aspect of Finnish legislation is rarely used, whilst nobody has been granted full protection in Sweden due to environmental disasters.

Although individual states have made provision for environmental refugees, an international framework is needed, but it is unlikely that states will be able to agree upon it in the foreseeable future, so dealing with environmental migration will remain an unresolved and debated issue.

In conclusion, dealing with the problem of rising environmental migration will be difficult, particu-

7

The World’s New Green Cities Alexander Daniel With rapidly growing populations, cities are expanding and developing in order to sustain the needs of the people. But many of the cities in the world are getting it wrong, creating large amounts of pollution, over extracting resources and creating large amounts of unnecessary waste. Today humans are estimated to extract 50% more natural resources than 30 years ago- 60 billion tonnes of raw materials a year, and as well as this having a large effect on the environment. It is also having a significant social impact, leading to poor working conditions and human rights violations.

Extracting these large amounts of resources is unsustainable

its carrying capacity.

as areas have a certain carrying capacity; the maximum number of people that can be supported by an environment. An area’s carrying capacity can be increased and certain methods can be used so as not to go over the carrying capacity which could lead to many different issues.

Factors affecting the carrying capacity include the amount of water, space, raw materials, the food availability and the capacity to absorb waste and so by taking into consideration these factors, a city can increase and adapt to

taking us close to our carrying capacity, these include over-use of water, this was moved to the top of the WEF Global Risk Ranking 2015. Agriculture is responsible for about 70% of the world’s water usage and industry uses a further 22%. Also, if everyone ate like US citizens then earth could only support 2.5 billion people; Italians on the other hand eat more varied diets and are on average healthier and so the earth could support 5 billion of these. Seeing that our population at the moment is somewhere around 7.4 billion we would need

8

In the past, civilisations have gone over their carrying capacity and it has resulted in the collapse of the civilisation, for example it is believed that the Mayans exceeded their carrying capacity as with their population increasing they were forced to cultivate more land. Consequently, the deforestation of this land caused top soil erosion and conflict broke out between the Mayans, leading to their collapse. Another example is when the Vikings tried to settle in Greenland and did not adapt their farming techniques and so ran out of food. There are some problems we have at the moment that are potentially

to eat somewhere between the average Indian and the average Italian to keep under our carrying capacity. At the moment it would take 1.5 Earths to sustain the current lifestyle and global population and this is predicted to rise up to 3 Earths by 2050 if we continue at this rate. Many scientists believe Earth has a carrying capacity of 10 billion people. Therefore something needs to be done to reduce this and there are a number of ideas that are currently being tried which fall under 3 sections that current solutions can be classified into: improving technology, slowing population growth and changing global culture.

Masdar City (left) is a new city in the United Arab Emirates that has been built that is not only environmentally sustainable, but also socially and economically.

Designed by a British architecture firm, Foster and Partners, it aims to be the most sustainable eco-city and is a model for future urban development. The city is 2.4 miles² and currently only 500 people live there, with an aim of 40,000 living there by 2017, but 1,200 people commute there to work. Masdar offsets around 15,000 tonnes of carbon emissions every year, equivalent to taking 3,300 cars off the road.

The buildings are designed to reduced energy and water consumption by 40% but the city has found that their aim of zero emissions is very challenging and near impossible to achieve.

The whole city is largely based on people walking; it is estimated that pollution from traffic kills around 5,000 people in the UK each year and so building a city around walking reduces the possible harm on people and the environment. There are no

roads in Masdar, the only transport other than walking is an underground driverless car system and there is a train station in the city to link with the rest of Abu Dhabi. The car system is completely driverless and uses magnetic pathways under the city; they are solar powered and charge when not being used.

The city is powered by 2 types of solar power, the first is a method in which light is focused by large mirrors to a single point which consequently heats a tank of oil up to 400°C and the majority of the energy stored is then used to cool water for the city. However this method is very costly and so there is another more typical way used to convert the solar energy into useable energy. Solar panels are used to power the city, Masdar has more than 87,000 of these solar panels that cover an area of 22 hectares- on the top of buildings as well as in large solar panel fields. These produce 17,000 Megawatts a year and the number of solar panels are still increasing. The solar panel fields were built before construction of the city started so the construction would be running on green energy even before the city was built. Using renewable energy increases the carrying capacity as it reduces the strain on the non-renewable energy supplies such as coal, oil and gas and also

benefits socially as solar power is clean energy.

Although Masdar City is the greenest city in the world it isn’t the only city to start using new techniques to improve its sustainability. There are many different ways in which this can be done. One of which is urban farming, this is using agricultural practices in villages/towns/cities.

Urban farming has seen a recent large increase mostly as a recreational activity and urban farming now supplies food to around 700 million people worldwide living in cities. Urban farming is becoming more widely used as space becomes limited and so using the rooves of buildings is very efficient. Also, growing our

food near to where we live the amount of “food miles”, the distance the food is transported, is decreased, and therefore less pollution from the transport is released. Another solution is to slow down population growth.

This can be done a number of different ways including child policies as seen in China which prevented 400 million births and reduced China’s fertility rate from 5 in the 1970’s to 1.5 in 2010, but many countries’ fertility rate is declining without any policies. As a country becomes more developed their fertility rate decreases as children are no longer needed as an asset such as for subsistence farming and are instead seen as a cost.

The global fertility rate is falling close to the replacement level of 2.1, the rate at which children replace their parents.

If we continue at this rate we will reach our carrying capacity within the next century and so actions must be taken so that this doesn’t happen, whether it is inventing new technology, lowering population growth or changing our culture so that our global ecological footprint is reduced and the carrying capacity is not reached.

9

OVERPOPULATION IS AN ANIMAL RIGHTS VIOLATION says Charlotte Coop How rapid human population growth contributes to the endangerment and extinction of non-human species.

The human population has been growing enormously since the 1970s and it is now at a growth of 1.13% per year. Although this seems like a small amount, as it is a relatively low percentage, a growth of 1.13% a year results in a population increase of 80 million people in the world per year. Therefore, each year, there are 80 million more mouths to feed, 80 million more people to house and 80 million more jobs to create. This rapid increase of people can have devastating impacts, not only for the human race, but for the planet we live on and the animals we share it with.

now in the 21st century, humans and our pets and livestock consist of 96% – 98% of the mass of the mammals of the earth.

The proportion of other mammals has decreased from 99.9% to just 2-4%. These shocking figures alone are evidence of how greatly human growth has impacted other species of animals, and puts into perspective the scale of the issue.

Extinction occurs when an animal’s habitat is altered so that they are no longer adapted to survive in the conditions there.

The two major ways in which this is done is by climate change and deforestation. It can be said that both of these factors have become an issue or been worsened due to a rapidly growing population.

ests, casing a constant increase in the acres of vegetation cleared. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the earth has only 5% of tropical forest cover remaining, and is losing this at a rate of over 200,000 square kilometres a year, with the rate of loss increasing.

One of the major causes for deforestation is agriculture; land is cleared in order to provide areas to graze livestock and to grow grains for livestock to eat.

An increasing population results in an increased demand for food.

As an estimated 92% of people are carnivores worldwide, an increased amount of food production requires even more land to be cleared for livestock and their food. For example, in the Amazon, around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, primarily to be used for cattle ranching (shown in the photograph to the left).

A second cause of deforestation is to make land available for housing and urbanisation. This is a result of population growth, as the more people there are, the more housing is required. This demands new houses and infrastructures to be built in order to prevent overcrowding. Deforestation is carried out to create new areas to be built on. This can benefit the human population as it provides a solution for the issue of overcrowding, but it has devastating effects for the ecosystem and environment in place there.

Previously, human population consisted of only a small fraction of the earth’s inhabitants; 200 years ago, humans, our pets and our livestock formed 0.1% to 10-12% of the mass of the mammals on the earth. However,

10

Deforestation is an issue closely linked to overpopulation, with an increase of 80 million people each year, there is a larger demand for resources, including lumber and agriculture, which are largely produced in rain for-

Rising levels of deforestation results in species’ habitat becoming threatened. It is estimated that there is a global loss of around 137 plant, animal and insect species every day as a result of rainforest deforesta-

tion-resulting in around 50,000 species becoming extinct annually. As human population rises the population of other species falls; plants’ and animals’ habitats that they are specifically adapted to live in are being increasing destroyed by deforestation, as these animals are not adapted to live in any other area, they cannot survive and quickly become endangered.

An example of a species suffering from deforestation is the Sumatran rhino. The smallest of all the rhinos, the Sumatran Rhino used to occupy the Himalayas in Bhutan and India, areas of Thailand and possibly areas of Vietnam and China. Now however, the species can be found only in small populations on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia.

This species’ decrease in population is almost completely due to habitat loss from deforestation. Continuation of this is likely to push the Sumatra Rhino to extinction completely.

A second major cause of species’ endangerment and extinction is climate change. Overall, the total amount of ozone in the atmosphere decreased by about

3% between 1979 and 2014. The release of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide into the

of fish. Oceans are becoming warmer, which is posing a threat to aquatic animals such as trout and salmon, which require cold water to survive.

The human race is having devastating Long droughts are threatening effects on wildlife. crops and wildlife in the desatmosphere is the fundamensert. Snow and ice is melting eartal cause of global warming. lier, causing animals to come out Human activity’s such as burning of hibernation early. The effects fossil fuels to generate electricare devastating and numerous.

If the population continues to increase at its current rate, the human race’s release of harmful gasses will destroy the diversity of wildlife that we live amongst today.

ity and to power cars, are the cause of the enhancement of the greenhouse effect-which is causing global warming. Population growth can be thought of as the primary cause of climate change. The average Australian person releases 20.6 tonnes of CO2 a day into the atmosphere.

An increase in population results in more carbon emissions produced. This is because there is a higher use of electricity and fuels to power cars and other vehicles.

This global increase in temperature has huge effects on animals and their habitats. Sea levels are rising, which has already caused coral bleaching, leading to the collapse of ecosystems that provide for large amount

One animal for which climate change is a major threat is the polar bear. Polar bears’ habitat is sea ice, which is melting at an alarming rate due to an increase in the planet’s temperature. It has been projected that the polar bear population will have decreased by two thirds by 2050, showing the catastrophic effects that the polar bears’ loss of habitat will cause. In 2008, the polar bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The human race is having devastating effects on wildlife.

Increasing population is leading to animals’ and plants’ habitats changing, so much so that its inhabitants can no longer survive. If the population continues to increase at its current rate, then endangered animals will become extinct and ecosystems will collapse. However, this can be stopped; by taking measures to reduce population size, such as anti-natalist policies, there will be a decrease in deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions can be kept under control; there can be hope for the species that are so greatly threatened.

11

Migration Across the Mediterranean Rosie McGahan looks at this pressing humanitarian and political issue The Mediterranean Sea, between Europe, South West Asia and North Africa, has always been a crucial trade route between countries for business and is a popular holiday destination, home to over 3,000 islands.

However, the body of water is quickly becoming a notorious graveyard for thousands of refugees who risk their lives crossing the sea from North Africa and the Middle East to try to reach Europe. In 2015, an estimated 2,600 refugees drowned in the Mediterranean Sea in the hope of getting to Europe.

One of the main groups of refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean Sea are Syrian refugees, forced to migrate and seek asylum in more developed countries, such as those in Europe, where they hope to gain a better standard of living and quality of life. Since the Syrian Civil War intensified in recent years, the number of refugees attempting this journey has increased dramatically and refugees are willing to take even bigger risks and put themselves in more danger, which, in turn, affects the number of people killed in the journey. Conflict in Syria between different groups under the dictatorship run by al-Assad and the recently established, so called ‘ISIS’, has forced 4.8 million Syrians out of the country. Many of these cross the Mediterranean from Syria to Greek islands, such as Crete, which have recently had to set up emergency ref-

12

ugee camps to cope with the large numbers of asylum seekers reaching the islands.

The second main group of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea are those from Libya to Italy. Previously, the main route from North Africa to Europe was from Morocco to Spain as this is the shortest route across the Mediterranean. However, the 1,104 miles between the coast of Libya and Italy is rapidly becoming a route for migrants to use to cross into Europe following Spain’s recent increase in border control. In the 1990s, the Libyan leader Muammar al Gaddafi, opened the country’s borders to “unite Africa”. This allows all Africans to move through Libya to the coast and across the Sea. African migrants are not necessarily asylum seekers fleeing war like Syrians. However, all migrants crossing the Mediterranean are willing to risk their lives because of the push and pull factors being significantly more important than obstacles such as the Mediterranean. The major push factor making migrants leave Africa through Libya is the political instability and poverty.

Some Africans are political refugees if they are persecuted by their country of origin’s government due to religious or ethnic customs. There are also multiple cases of human rights violations and a significant lack of law and security in African countries. This makes many Africans leave in the hope of a better quality of life

and higher standards of living in European countries like Italy.

Both sets of migrants will cross the Mediterranean in whatever raft or boat they have access to even if it is relatively unsafe, emphasising their desperation to cross the sea. Many migrants will use fishing boats or even life rafts that are not equipped with safety equipment like life jackets or emergency rafts. The boats are also overfilled with migrants, making them even more dangerous and increasing the risk of them sinking. Consequently, the number of deaths in the Mediterranean has increased dramatically since the migration crisis started. In October 2015, one small fishing boat from Libya carrying 366 migrants, capsized and all were drowned off the coast of the Italian island of Lampedusa because the boat was not made for transporting that number of migrants over such a distance. The severity of the situation was highlighted in September 2015 when powerful photos were published of a dead Syrian boy. His body had been washed up on a Turkish beach after drowning in an attempt to flee the war ridden country with his family. The publicity from this case brought the plight of these migrants to the attention of the world and increased pressure on all European countries to do something to address this issue.

The recent influx of migrants and asylum seekers using the

Mediterranean Sea as a route to Europe has resulted in the serious problem of human trafficking. People from both the source area in Syria and North Africa have exploited the migrant crisis for their benefit. Many will promise transport across the sea and across subsequent borders for money and send the desperate migrants on overcrowded and unsafe rafts. Traffickers may also use lorries to get to or from the coast which are often left on the side of roads with the migrants inside, thinking they are on the way to their destination. On the 27th August 2015, the bodies of 71 Syrian migrants were found in an abandoned lorry on an Austrian motorway. On the same day, two boats carrying 500 people sank in the Mediterranean as they were overfilled and migrants on board had not been not supplied with life jackets and protection. The International Organisation for Migration released statistics claiming that 76% of almost 1,400 migrants arriving in Italy from Libya had been victims of human trafficking in one way. The often violent and dangerous people traffickers make money from migrants and asylum seekers who are willing to trade whatever money they have left for the opportunity to cross the Mediterranean.

The crisis has caused great conflict between countries as to how many asylum seekers they give refuge to and how the problem can be solved. Under the Geneva Convention, a series of treaties and international agreements regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, civilians and soldiers in a situation of war or conflict, the EU are expected to protect these migrants if they can. With countries in the EU being some of the most devel-

oped in the world, the majority are able to provide for a certain amount of migrants.

The majority of active solutions currently helping the situation in the Mediterranean are charity organisations supported by volunteers and donations. The Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS ) is a non-government organisation and charity that saves lives of migrants crossing seas through search and rescue missions. They began operating in the central Mediterranean in 2014 after the number of migrants risking their lives crossing the sea increased and to date have rescued just under 25,000 lives. Their work is invaluable; on the 10th August 2015 they saved 775 lives alone. However, although they are saving thousands of lives each month from drowning, ultimately, they are not discouraging migrants from taking the journey, and therefore, not solving the problem.

Operation Mare Nostrum was a yearlong mission launched on the 18th October 2013 and funded by the Italian Government, with â‚Ź1.8 million from the External Borders Fund from the European Commission. It was a military and humanitarian mission launched as a consequence of the rapid increase in migration across the Mediterranean in 2013. After a year it was replaced by Operation Triton which was a larger scale monitoring of migration movements into Italy. Soldiers aim to safeguard human lives migrating across the Sea and to catch and persecute illegal migrant smugglers and human traffickers. The Italian Navy positioned boats near Libya and the Straits of Sicily with 1,000 personnel. The Italian Air Force and the Carabi-

nieri are also involved with other sections of the Italian Security and Defence Force highlighting the severity of the situation. The initial operation was successful and increased Italy’s control on migration and Operation Triton is still operating in the Mediterranean Sea which shows a government’s active attempt to help asylum seekers in need.

Although the migrants are now safer with an increased number of human smugglers being caught and medical and rescue boats patrolling the route, the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean maintains at a record high. The increase in migration to Italy is causing social and economic problems regarding the possibility of overpopulation.

Although these are only two relatively successful examples of both government and charity projects to help the migrants who are risking everything to cross the Mediterranean to flee conflict or political instability in their country of origin, the crisis is ongoing and the number of migrants crossing the Sea is still at a record peak. Many suggest that until the standard of living in the country of origin is at a desirable level, for example the civil war is over in Syria and stable governments have been re-established in African countries, then the migration crisis will continue. Although the rescue missions in the Mediterranean Sea are admirable by both volunteers and Naval Forces, they are not stopping the migrants risking the journey. The impact of this influx of migrants is leading to political instability and social disturbances in European countries where many people believe their own economic well-being is being affected.

13

The Final Destination for a Refugee by Olivia Hilton In light of current affairs, the refugee crisis appears to be one of the most globally pressing and controversial topics at this point in time. With the colossal stream of asylum seekers pouring in from certain war polluted countries, Syria stands out as the largest source of refugees with more than 4.8 million having fled in search of safety and security; the primary issue of the moment is to find the most suitable long term destination for them.

The most logical area of refuge would be bordering countries, since they are easily accessible.

Lebanon is the most popular haven out of the neighbouring

countries for a Syrian. Despite it being the smallest out of the three (Jordan and Turkey also), it has received the largest number of migrants; Jordan and Turkey have accepted 960 000 between them. With a population of four million, there are at least 700 000 registered refugees, in addition to many that enter the country that skip registration. As a result there is a heavy burden placed on the country’s infrastructure; for instance there has been an increase in the unemployment rate of local Lebanese workers since refugees are willing to work for a lower wage. Also, the quality of life of refugees can suffer too.

Though they are provided with a relative sensation of safety, they still have no sense of security since they have not fled far

14

from the violence, as the country is in a volatile region. Neither are they guaranteed a home on arrival. Add in the issue of hostility from various locals (feeling neglected and a stranger in their native country), and the economy being rather weak (the GDP per capita being a meagre $6,000 and unemployment rate 12.3%), Jordan may appear as an optimum short term solution, but it does not pose an appropriate long term resolution for the refugees.

Though the idea may seem rather far-fetched, nearly 10,000 Syrian refugees (out of a total of approximately 80,000 refu-

gees) entered the United States this year alone. With President Obama initiating the action, these refugees were not only welcomed into the country, but were given high hopes of resettlement. With the border agency taking half of all applications received from the US Refugee Agency, the US resettles the most refugees than any other country, in states such as California, Michigan, Arizona and Texas.

Hence, they are able to begin to build a new and better life for themselves. On top of this, the United States has the world’s largest national economy (in nominal terms), with a GDP per capita of $57,293 (ranked 5th) and an unemployment rate of 4.7%, it gives the refugees very high prospects for the future.

However, since the US is a very

extensive country, these impressive figures definitely do not accurately represent certain areas of the country that they may find themselves settling, for instance Arizona and Texas, so they may hold overoptimistic views of their future there. As well as this, since the expansive oceans between Syria and the US is enormous and rather treacherous, the journey is neither simple nor safe, and so the move may be overambitious.

Furthermore, with President Obama (who is a democrat and supports the idea of foreign connections) stepping down from his role as President (after his second term), Donald Trump has taken his position, being a rather more right wing Republican.

He has already implemented a refusal of entry from seven Muslim countries, which would include all of the Syrian refugees. Therefore, the US does not prove to be a realistic and appropriate destination.

Though the idea may seem rather far-fetched, nearly 10,000 Syrian refugees (out of a total of approximately 80,000 refugees) entered the United States this year alone. With President Obama initiating the action, these refugees were not only welcomed into the country, but were given high hopes of resettlement. With the border agency taking half of all applications received from the US Refugee Agency, the US resettles the most refugees than any other country, in states such as California, Michigan, Arizona and Texas.

Hence, they are able to begin to build a new and better life for themselves. On top of this, the United States has the world’s largest national economy (in nominal terms), with a GDP per capita of $57,293 (ranked 5th) and an unemployment rate of 4.7%, it gives the refugees very

high prospects for the future.

However, since the US is a very extensive country, these impressive figures definitely do not accurately represent certain areas of the country that they may find themselves settling, for instance Arizona and Texas, so they may hold overoptimistic views of their future there. As well as this, since the expansive oceans between Syria and the US is enormous and rather treacherous, the journey is neither simple nor safe, and so the move may be overambitious.

an unemployment rate of 6.2%; here refugees can hope for a brighter future. The distance should prove to not be a significant issue since it is not that extensive and there is only land to travel across. The Swedish migration board also granted Syrian refugees permanent status in the country in 2013, which allows them immediate capacity to work, a choice of residence and family reunification. Hence not only economically will their situation improve, but also their quality of life drastically. Furthermore, despite the grant being launched in 2013, very few evident issues have risen since, unlike many other countries, and so they may feel much more welcomed and settled there.

Angela Merkel has been challenged on her refugee However, stance in Germany though there Furthermore, with President has been little impact momentarObama (who is a democrat and ily, there is no guarantee that this supports the idea of foreign con- stability will remain in the future. nections) stepping down from Nevertheless Sweden provides his role as President (after his both a suitable short and long second term), Donald Trump has term option for asylum seekers. taken his position, being a rather Recently, Germany has proven to more right wing Republican. be the favoured country of setHe has already implemented a tlement for Syrian refugees. With refusal of entry from 7 Muslim Europe’s strongest economy, the countries, which would include GDP per capita $48,000 and all of the Syrian refugees. Thereunemployment rate of 4.2%, it fore, the US does not prove to proposes very high prospects for be a realistic and appropriate asylum seekers. This is reflected Sweden appears to be a pop- in the statistics, with 1 million ular country of settlement for entering the country in 2015 after refugees, receiving the highest the Chancellor Merkel raised its number of asylum seekers of all borders. However, many issues industrialized countries between have risen since this immense 2010 and 2014, with 24.4 asylum influx that is not promising for the seekers per 1000 inhabitants. future. Right wing parties have Its economy is strong, with a emerged, for example PEGIDA, GDP per capita of $41,000 and claiming neglect from the gov-

ernment (whose focus is too centred towards the refugees) and pressure on the country’s infrastructure; for instance school authorities are urgently requesting 25,000 new teaching recruits.

Some parties are taking action in a violent manner, including arson attacks on shelters. Furthermore, with her career on the line, Merkel is now contradicting her prior beliefs by stating that the “situation (being the refugee crisis) like the late summer of 2015 cannot and will not be repeated” as well as a more controversial announcement that the burka “should be banned wherever it is legally possible”. So, though the hope of financial stability is very attractive, the belligerent attitude that has been exhibited towards the refugees is now not only mentally very isolating , but now also a hazard to their safety.

Furthermore, with Merkel’s role as the Chancellor wavering, and her ideas to almost suppress the refugees culture, as well as feeling unwelcomed, their ability to enter freely into the country in the future may not be an option.

Overall, the primary issue that faces many asylum seekers to this date is the hostile attitude of the residents of their destination, as a result of many negative impacts of the refugee crisis.

Despite many economically positive factors of a country, if they feel isolated or persecuted then their quality of life is not greatly improved. The rapid recent change in the political views of many currently popular countries for asylum seekers suggests that there may be a shift in movement and residence to others. However, momentarily Sweden proves to be the optimum choice of settlement, with a strong economy and no signs of any current or future adversity towards the refugees solution to the issue at this time.

15

Published by the Geography Department St Albans School, Abbey Gateway, St Albans AL3 4HB