Last week we linked to an article by former party leader Paddy Ashdown headed “Rio+20 is a chance to secure our children’s future“.
Over on Huffington Post he has now given his assessment of the summit.
… as the summit reached its conclusion on Friday criticism from environment groups, charities working on poverty issues and the mainstream media over the strength of the agreement was becoming louder.
And yet the news coming from Rio has not been all bad. Indeed, some positive outcomes have emerged from the summit. These include both a recognition of climate change as a “cross-cutting issue” and of disaster risk reduction as a central part of long-term development – something I was especially glad to see as this was the centre piece of a recent report I wrote for the government on humanitarian emergency relief.
He adds:
In the next decade, up to 175 million children are likely to be affected every year by the kinds of natural disasters brought about by climate change. To avert humanitarian crises it is essential not just to tackle the causes of climate change but also to build resilience to disasters.
By helping communities to adapt to risks we can help avoid humanitarian disasters in the future. This includes setting up early warning systems, equipping and educating communities, increasing the capacity of Governments to cope, introducing alternative livelihoods that are not as dependent on natural resources and changing agricultural practices to be better suited to a drier climate. Adaptation is often “development” that doesn’t just respond to the needs of the past, but looks ahead to prepare for the future.
You can read the full article here.
* Paddy Ashdown is President of Unicef UK.
* Mary Reid is a contributing editor on Lib Dem Voice. She was a councillor in Kingston upon Thames, where she is still very active with the local party, and is the Hon President of Kingston Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Llandow, 1950: The worst air disaster the world had seen
Electoral Calculus's local election predictions
Are memories like a row of telegraph poles?
Dundee - designing resilience into a fragile urban landscape
Potential job losses multiply from NHS England
tom arms
Simon R
Alan Jelfs
Peter Hirst
5 Comments
Website: http://www.glyn-coch.com/future_of_food_and_farming.htm
There seems to be some uncertainty about the actual numbers of children to be affected by climate change. Paddy says 175 million a year – your summary implies only 17.5 million a year. Either way, the severity of the problem is adequately demonstrated,
However, politicians seem to be incredibly relaxed about climate change. Many of the predictions made in the 1970s and summarised in the Open Univeristy Science Foundation Course (S101) of 1980, have now come true, and we are now well on the way to uncontrolable anihilation of the biosphere. Just consider that we have seen the break down of ocean currents, the melting of polar ice, increase of volcanic activity (probably die to shift of weight due to melting ice) increase of wildfire and this year the release of methane from Tundra.
I work in a rural community, and unpredictable weather and the lack of adequate weather forecasting is already turning farming into a lottery. AND YET we dont even have an agricultural policy.
Perhaps thinking about how climate change is already affecting UK famers, and what changes may be needed to overcome these problems may help get international policies working. At the moment it appears that the UK representatives went to RIO saying “we are alright, we have to help poor ignorant Johnny Foreigner.”
It is nonsense to say that only 40% of the UK economy depends on natural resources. Without food there will be no economy. Security of the UK food supply is on the edge now.
Sorry, I hope that this is not too gloomy, but whatever happens life is going to be increasingly difficult for the rest of our lives. The economy is a side show. (Yes, a healthy economy makes it easier to make necessary changes, but at its most important the economy is a man made tool. Food is essesntial and its supply depends absloutelt on climate. But we still have an opportunity to make life considerbaly better then it would be. Future generations will be greatful if we take the right action, and with sufficient urgencey now.
I believe that my father chaired Paddy’s adoption meeting when he first stood for parliament, (he was SW regional chair at the time), and I have always had great respect for him, but his 60% rating for a global convention that only managed to set up a process, sounds dangerously complacent.
Apologies for abrupt end of above. Duty called.
Also for terminology used above. I thought that when it said “Your email is never published. Required fields are marked ” it was referring to this e-mail form, and that I was privately trying to stir up a journalist. Sorry if anyone panics.
However, the climate situation is indeed VERY serious, and there is really no room for complacency.
Huw Jones – Good comment and good link. I’ve downloaded the Foresight report on The Future of Food and Farming. Will read it in detail.
You say:
“Sorry, I hope that this is not too gloomy, but whatever happens life is going to be increasingly difficult for the rest of our lives.”
Yes, it’s a gloomy message, but if the situation IS gloomy, how do you sugar coat it to make it palatable? Being potentially labelled as ‘a Doomer’ is an occupational hazard. But too many people still believe that with a few tweaks of the economy, a bit of QE here and there, and a couple of new technology tricks we can get back to BAU, (Business as Usual). It’s a bitter (red pill), we have to swallow, but as you say ‘ life is going to be increasingly difficult for the rest of our lives’
Here is a report commissioned by the US government in 2005, and then promptly ignored when they read the final submission. The Hirsch Report (2005)
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf
Warning – DO NOT read it if you are of a nervous disposition.
And for further info –
http://www.peakoil.net/
hi John Dunn
My focus on agriculture means that I forget about things like peak oil. Your links show that even if agriculture is able to produce food at current levels, it may be impossible to transport enough of it to the cities – or around the world.
You may have read about my ex-colleagues’ (at Rothamsted) ambition to double wheat yields to 20 tonnes per hectare. THis may be possible and is a great research aim in present circumstances. However there are obvious problems in adopting the technologies they may come up with. Firstly doubling the yield means doubling the required on farm harvesting, transport and storage capacity. Secondly doubling the quantity of food on sale will halve the price that farmers get to pay for all the extra expense. If there is inadequate support to farmers in these conditions then smaller farms will go out of business , farm size will maybe quadruple, huge areas will be treated in exactly the same way at the same time, and we can expect ecosystem colapse. Even if this does not happen these County sized fields will be vulnerable to severe weather events at the same time and one event (such as the recent floods) could cause famine in this country.
Population pressure means that we need the technology and the increased yields, but it is essential that farmers are supported so that we do not see further mergers and consequent vulnerability.
Huw – Thanks for the response. Yes these are big issues, and some of the proposed solutions can be counter intuitive in the face of peak oil.
( Many are not aware that supply of crude oil has peaked or plateaued at around 74 million barrels per day since 2005. The world, presently, needs 86 million barrels per day. So the shortfall of 12 mbpd, is being made up from biofuels, gas to liquids, coal to liquids etc. These manufactured fuels have a poorer energy content than petrol/diesel. They also have a dreadful EROEI, or Energy Return On Energy Invested. However, these manufactured fuels are, temporarily, masking the overall problem of crude oil supply. We are in for a shock within the next 5 to 10 years. Indeed, many believe that the financial trauma the world is presently experiencing, is the leading edge of the oil shock tsunami. )
Apologies for the gloom.
A snapshot of what could be ahead, happened in 1998 at the time of the Russian Collapse. At that time their virtual outpost Cuba, could not be supplied with oil as it had been in previous years. Their [Cuban], oil imports fell off a cliff overnight. I’m not suggesting that will happen here, in fact for us it may well be a slow decline over 15/20 years. But the important observation to make is how Cuba handled the problem in terms of agriculture. Further industrialisation of the agricultural system does not seem to stack up, in the face of an increasingly more expensive and dwindling supply of oil.
We are living in interesting times.