Climate Change Threatens Our Existence, Says Indian Spiritual leader Sadhguru

Civil Society, Climate Change, COP29, COP29 Blog, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals

COP29

Jagadish Vasudev, known widely as Sadhguru, at COP29. Credit: IPS

Jagadish Vasudev, known widely as Sadhguru, at COP29. Credit: IPS

BAKU, Nov 16 2024 (IPS) – A sudden flurry of activity as Jagadish Vasudev, known widely as Sadhguru, emerges from an interview room in the COP29 media centre. It’s early days of the conference and there is energy and excitement at the venue in Baku.


With his long flowing beard and blue turban, it’s clear that many journalists are keen to interview the influential spiritual leader from India and the founder of the Isha Foundation, which has been dedicated to humanitarian projects since 1992. His initiative, Cauvery Calling, aims to support Indian farmers by encouraging the planting of 2.4 billion trees through agroforestry to restore the Cauvery River basin.

Now in Baku for COP29, Sadhguru shares his insights in an exclusive interview with IPS.

Inter Press Service: Sadhguru, climate change has been a known crisis for over four decades. Yet despite numerous conferences and terms like “loss and mitigation” and “climate finance,” we’re still facing rising temperatures, floods, and droughts. Why are we not succeeding? Are we missing the right approach?

Sadhguru: “Succeeding in what, exactly? The problem is that there’s no clear, actionable goal. We talk about economic development, which many nations pursue without pausing to consider its impact on the planet. At the same time, those who have already achieved a certain quality of life tell others not to follow the same path. It’s a paradox. We tell people to give up hydrocarbons—coal, oil—yet offer no viable alternatives. If we shut off hydrocarbons today, this very conference wouldn’t last ten minutes!

We’re all focused on what to give up but lack sustainable, scalable alternatives. Solar, wind, and similar sources only cover a tiny fraction of our energy needs—less than 3 percent. For real change, we need technology that provides clean, non-polluting energy, but we’re far from that. Nuclear energy is a powerful option, yet there’s too much activism and fear surrounding it. Meanwhile, electric cars, often touted as solutions, don’t really address ecological well-being; they just reduce urban air pollution.”

IPS: So, what would be a more pragmatic approach?

Sadhguru: It’s simple. We need to focus on soil restoration. Changing the soil composition can mitigate up to 37 percent of climate issues, according to studies. The emphasis has shifted a bit from ‘oil’ to ‘soil,’ and that’s a good sign. But beyond that, our entire mindset needs to shift from activism to pragmatic, science-based solutions. Over the past 70 years, we’ve lost 84 percent of wildlife, 92% of freshwater aquatic life, and 84 percent of insect life. The soil lacks organic content, and without it, trillions of microorganisms essential to life are perishing. Most scientists warn that if we continue at this pace, we may only have 40–50 harvests left—about 25–30 years of viable farming.

IPS: Climate change is often seen as a distant, scientific issue. Many people don’t connect with it. Why is that?

Sadhguru: An idea must have legs to walk. If it can’t, it won’t go anywhere. Rather than lofty ideals, we need simple, actionable goals. Soil is foundational to life: we eat from it, and when we die, we go back to it. Ninety-five percent of life forms depend on it, and over half the human population interacts with it daily. We must invest in soil regeneration, not just technologies to replace oil.”

IPS: How do we make this understandable for the common person?

Sadhguru: The common person doesn’t need to grasp all the details. It’s the responsibility of governments to act—to create laws and policies that enforce soil conservation. Blaming consumerism misses the point. People aspire to improve their lives, and those who criticize ‘consumerism’ often hold to a double standard. You can’t stop human aspirations. If anything, we need to reduce our population’s environmental impact over time, but even mentioning that sparks controversy. The truth is, over the past century, life expectancy has increased dramatically—from an average of 28 years in 1947 to over 70 years today. As people live longer, reproduction should be adjusted to balance the population. But people resist even these pragmatic realities.

IPS: You have been advocating for a long time to make living in a village a lucrative affair. How can we make village life sustainable and attractive?

Sadhguru: Yes, but it’s about making rural life viable, not romanticizing it. If the soil is rich, rural life can be economically rewarding. Today, people pay more for organic produce. Imagine if we branded food by the soil’s organic content—consumers would pay more for nutrient-dense produce, and this would incentivize soil conservation. Our agriculture needs to move beyond rice and wheat dependency, which was a temporary solution during the Green Revolution. Now we must transition from that ‘bridge’ to sustainable practices.

IPS: This needs government policies but there are few.  Why don’t we see climate change as a political agenda?

Sadhguru: In a democracy, politicians focus on what their voters demand, which often isn’t long-term environmental policies. To enact meaningful change, citizens need to express this desire. For example, our Save Soil movement reached 3.91 billion people in a hundred days. This kind of widespread support influences policy. We’re already seeing action in countries like China, India, and parts of Europe, though it’s gradual. Unfortunately, sometimes governments wait for a disaster before they act. Then only I understand there is a flood. It entered your house somewhere. I think, after all, it’s in the flooding region, you know.

IPS: And you’ve also mentioned that thirty percent of the human diet should come from trees. Could you elaborate on that?

Sadhguru: In Kashmir, for example, over thirty percent of people’s diet used to come from trees. They eat a lot of local fruits. When Hyun Tsang visited India, he observed that the intellect of Indian people was sharper because of the high fruit intake. Today, unfortunately, most fruit is bought in supermarkets, often imported from far-off places. The local connection is being lost, and this has implications for health. Eating local fruit is more than just cultural. The microorganisms in our body and in the soil where we live are continuously in contact. This link between diet and our microbiome is often ignored, yet it affects us deeply. The biome in your body has “cousins” in the land where you live. In yoga, we advise eating foods from within a radius that you can walk in a day. This keeps your body strong and in sync with the environment.

IPS: One critical issue back in India is farmer suicide. What can be done to address this?

Sadhguru: They’re not dying out of choice but out of desperation. When they take loans and cannot repay, life becomes unbearable. Many have inherited farming skills but lack alternatives. If someone with an MBA or MSc in agriculture were given land, they would struggle to match the knowledge and skill of a farmer, yet society undervalues this knowledge. Due to small land holdings—less than a hectare on average—they can neither sustain their families nor avoid debt.

In the past, villagers worked together as a community. Today, small farmers fence their tiny plots and install their own bore wells. The costs are immense and lead to further debt. We need to restore community support, enlarge land holdings, or provide viable alternatives to prevent this tragic cycle.

IPS: And what about faith? Can it play a role in addressing the climate crisis?

Sadhguru: Let’s not focus on faith in the context of climate change. It’s our responsibility to act. When things go wrong due to human error, people often call it fate or God’s will. But this crisis is of our making. And the crisis we talk about isn’t the planet’s—it’s a crisis for human survival. Life on Earth relies on delicate interconnections, from insects to microbes. If these were wiped out, life on the planet would soon collapse. Ironically, if humans disappeared, the planet would thrive. This is the perspective we need: climate change threatens our existence, not the Earth’s.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Women, Indigenous Communities Must Lead Climate Finance Allocations at COP29—Plan International Global Director

Active Citizens, Aid, Civil Society, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, COP29, COP29 Blog, Education, Population, Sustainable Development Goals

COP29 Blog

Soumya Guha, the Global Director of Programs, Plan International. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah

Soumya Guha, the Global Director of Programs, Plan International. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah

BAKU, Nov 16 2024 (IPS) – Plan International, a global leader in advocating for children’s rights and gender equality, sees the need for women and Indigenous people to be at the forefront of climate negotiations.


Founded in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War, Plan International has spent over eight decades working to improve the lives of children in some of the world’s most underprivileged regions. While its initial focus was on broader child welfare, the organization has, over the last ten years, shifted its attention toward empowering girls, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This strategic pivot has an understanding that girls often face compounded barriers to education, health, and economic opportunities, especially in remote and conflict-prone areas.

Today, Plan International, says Soumya Guha, the Global Director of Programs, operates in 52 countries, supported by fundraising activities across 22 locations. Its programs target the most marginalized communities, focusing on holistic, long-term development alongside emergency humanitarian responses. This dual approach has allowed the organization to integrate its development goals with pressing needs, such as disaster resilience and conflict mitigation.

“We believe the first five years of a child’s life are critical in shaping their future,” Guha said. The organization’s “I Am Ready” program, implemented in countries like Laos, Tanzania, and Cambodia, addresses linguistic and social barriers faced by children from marginalized groups. By offering a ten-week intensive program that prepares children for primary school in their local language, the initiative has led to a remarkable 37 percent improvement in school attendance and retention rates.

In earthquake-prone areas, the organization has introduced disaster preparedness programs that equip schools to respond effectively during emergencies. “In the Kathmandu earthquake, schools participating in our safety programs were able to evacuate quickly, saving lives,” Guha said.

Beyond education, Plan International emphasizes sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), ensuring that young people have access to critical information and resources. Programs that support economic empowerment, such as initiatives involving school feeding programs, complement these efforts. In Sierra Leone, for instance, women’s cooperatives not only supply food for schools but also reinvest their earnings to establish educational facilities in underserved areas. This approach has created a ripple effect, fostering gender equality, boosting local economies, and enhancing educational outcomes.

Recognizing the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalized communities, the organization integrates climate adaptation strategies into its education and health programs. In Asia, combating child marriage and addressing climate vulnerabilities are emerging priorities. “Child marriage is a persistent issue in Asia, and we are determined to tackle it alongside climate change challenges,” Guha said.

He added that operating in regions affected by conflict and disasters requires a nuanced approach. In Ethiopia’s Tigray region, where prolonged conflict has displaced thousands, Plan International works with local organizations to provide immediate relief while also supporting host communities. This dual focus aims to ease tensions and promote peacebuilding. Similar strategies have been employed in Bangladesh during the Rohingya refugee crisis, where the organization ensured that support extended to both displaced populations and the local communities hosting them.

“Technology plays an increasingly important role in Plan International’s programs, particularly in remote and resource-poor areas. In Sierra Leone, for example, a digital platform called Televret enables real-time feedback on the quality of school meals, ensuring accountability and timely action. In Ethiopia, augmented reality tools are being piloted to support children with learning disabilities by making educational content more accessible and engaging,” Guha said.

The organization plans to continue its focus on early childhood development, education, economic empowerment, and climate resilience. While its geographic priorities remain centered on Africa and Asia, it will also maintain a presence in South America, addressing deep-seated inequities that persist despite overall economic progress in the region.

Guha stressed the importance of international cooperation at COP29, particularly in climate finance. The organization advocates for ambitious funding targets, stating that developed nations should bear a significant share of the responsibility. “The most marginalized communities, including women and indigenous populations, must be at the forefront of climate finance allocations,” said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

CGIAR Developing Farmers’ Resilience in the Face of Climate Shocks

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, COP29, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Global, Headlines, TerraViva United Nations

COP29

Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR). Credit: CGIAR

Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR). Credit: CGIAR

BAKU, Nov 16 2024 (IPS) – As COP29 negotiations continue in Baku, agricultural leaders are pitching the need for climate-resilient and data-driven solutions to support marginalized farmers and low-income communities.


In an exclusive interview with Inter Press Service (IPS), Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR), discusses the impact of digital tools, precision agriculture, and low-emission food systems on achieving a sustainable and equitable food future. 

Inter Press Service: How helpful are digital tools in supporting marginalized farmers?

Ismahane Elouafi: Digital tools offer immense potential, especially in bridging the knowledge gap between agricultural experts and rural farmers who often lack access to information. Over the past few decades, funding for traditional extension services has dwindled, so digital solutions in local languages can fill this void. Imagine a farmer receiving real-time advice on managing water, soil fertility, or disease in a language they understand—this could revolutionize small-scale farming. Additionally, precision agriculture, which tailors input needs to specific locations and soil compositions, allows for highly customized farming strategies that optimize both resources and yields.

IPS: Can you explain how precision agriculture works in practical terms?

Elouafi: Precision agriculture allows us to deliver exact inputs—water, nutrients, or fertilizers—needed for a specific plot. This approach minimizes waste and environmental impact, and it’s especially useful in regions where resources are scarce. For instance, if a plant needs 20 milliliters of water in one square meter but only 10 milliliters a few kilometers away, precision agriculture ensures we don’t overuse resources. Ultimately, the goal is to increase productivity sustainably, producing more output per hectare with fewer inputs, especially in a time where climate pressures demand we be mindful of environmental impacts.

IPS: How essential is biodiversity to resilient farming systems?

Elouafi: Resilience means that after a shock—a drought, flood, or even conflict—farmers can bounce back and continue production. CGIAR’s focus is to provide tools, technology, and genetic resources that make this possible. We’ve developed rice varieties that survive flooding and maize that tolerates drought, helping farmers maintain productivity despite climatic stressors. Another key factor is small-scale irrigation, which allows farmers to respond to drought by providing supplemental water, ensuring resilience and food security.

IPS: You mentioned low-emission food systems. How can agriculture contribute to climate goals?

Elouafi: Agriculture is responsible for about 33 percent of global greenhouse gases. By shifting to low-emission practices, we can greatly reduce methane and other emissions. For example, traditional rice paddies release large amounts of methane. However, alternative wetting and drying practices can cut methane emissions by 30 percent while boosting productivity by 33 percent. In livestock, using specific forages and studying animal gut microbiomes can reduce methane emissions by up to 60 percent. Agriculture is uniquely positioned to sequester carbon through practices like cover cropping and biodiversity, which is crucial in mitigating climate change.

IPS: Could internet and data use enhance climate security?

Elouafi: Absolutely. Digital access and internet coverage in rural areas can provide timely climate information, like rainfall predictions, which empowers farmers to make better planting decisions. With projects like Elon Musk’s nanosatellite network expanding internet access, marginalized farmers can increasingly leverage climate data. CGIAR also focuses on producing accurate data for the Global South, as existing climate models often rely on data from the Global North, which doesn’t reflect realities in places like Sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia. Our data can inform region-specific, actionable climate strategies.

IPS: How does CGIAR support innovations and resilience in vulnerable regions?

Elouafi: CGIAR operates the largest publicly funded international agricultural research network, with a strong focus on least-income countries. Our goal is to close the yield gap between high- and low-income nations by providing bundles of innovations: drought-resistant varieties, small-scale irrigation, processing improvements, and access to markets. By helping farmers integrate these innovations, we ensure they’re more resilient and have a steady income. Additionally, our research helps policymakers design better frameworks to support smallholders and incentivize sustainable agri-food systems.

IPS: What do you hope COP29 will achieve in advancing agricultural and climate agendas?

Elouafi: COP29 must carry forward the momentum from COP28, where the UAE’s Declaration on Sustainable Agri-Food Systems was endorsed by 160 countries. Agriculture, food, and water systems need to be central to climate discussions. As we look to COP30 in Brazil, with its expertise in regenerative and climate-smart agriculture, I hope we continue viewing agriculture not as part of the climate problem but as an essential solution to it. Climate adaptation in agriculture is non-negotiable—lives and livelihoods depend on it.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Walking with Wisdom: Whaia’s Mission to Bring Indigenous Knowledge to COP 29

Active Citizens, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, COP28, COP29, COP29 Blog, COP29 Blog, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Gender, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

COP29

Whaia with her daughter Moana at COP29. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

Whaia with her daughter Moana at COP29. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

BAKU, Nov 15 2024 (IPS) Kaitiaki! Whaia says she is at COP29 to bring indigenous wisdom to influence policy and to provide guardianship (kaitiaki) of the climate negotiations.


Whaia, who now lives in Aotearoa, New Zealand, was raised as an Indigenous Aboriginal in Australia, where through her community she led a life of cultural practices that protect the environment.

“Our cultural practices, our cultural ways, and the environment have always been our teacher and our classroom. To recognize our ‘Kaitiaki’ responsibilities is to be with the environment in the way that we have always lived.”

She came here with the Wisdom Keeper delegation and non-profit Indigenous Global Eldership, expressing a preference for saying, “That we are walking with them.” There are 16 members in the delegation with people from all across the globe—Hopi nation, Totemic Mexican, Māori, Palestinian, African, Canadian, Australian, U.S. and Amazonian.

Advocating for people from diverse backgrounds in the policy space, she said, “People are from different places here but united by a common goal. Some of us have been working in this policy space and some of us are new to the policy world. So we are about bridging the gaps between these spaces.”

With regard to promoting Indigenous knowledge, Whaia said, “Sometimes we feel that we don’t know policy. However, if we know our rights of passage, our ancient practices and our protocols, then we know policy. It just gets lost in translation within the language. So we are here to cross the bridge.”

Whaia came to the COP29 with her daughter. Moana beamed when she told IPS that it was Moana’s second COP.
“Moana also walked with the Wisdom Keeper delegation in Dubai last year when she was just seven years old.”

On bringing Moana to COP 29, she said, “I take her to all important meetings. I believe that we should actually bring the wisdom into our younger generation. They are the ones who will inherit the choices that we make.”

Whaia, beautifully playing multiple roles as an indigenous person, policy advocate, feminist, and mother, says, “Time taken to take care of our children is never a burden. Taking care of family are the rights and responsibilities that we all must step into. It starts at home, within our communities and extends globally.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

From the Biodiversity COP16 to the Climate COP29: Building Equitable Accountability, Alignment, and Adequacy on Finance

Biodiversity, Conferences, COP16, COP29, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

COP29 will need to build on COP16’s successes and mitigate its failures. Credit: COP16

COP29 will need to build on COP16’s successes and mitigate its failures. Credit: COP16

BAKU, Nov 15 2024 (IPS) – The United States just went through its most consequential election. While the outcome raises questions about what the re-election of Trump means for U.S. engagement in global climate talks moving forward (in view of his previous stunt), the game is still on, with or without him. Despite the challenges, local communities, cities, states, private actors, and the public more broadly have embarked on an unstoppable journey—upholding the spirit of the Paris Agreement.


The world’s biodiversity agreement just faced its first big test in Cali, Colombia, at the United Nations’ 16th Biodiversity Conference of the Parties (COP16). The results were decidedly mixed, with some breakthroughs but also critical missed opportunities. Ultimately, it left the international community with a suite of urgent priorities to address our rapidly closing window to halt biodiversity collapse and to align the protection of nature with action on climate change.

With countries rapidly pivoting to the UN climate conference (COP29) this week, they will need to build on COP16’s successes and mitigate its failures, prioritizing the equitable delivery of main “AAA” objectives that are relevant to both: accountability, the alignment of biodiversity and climate plans, and the adequacy of resource mobilization and access to finance.

COP16 in Cali was the first Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP since the December 2022 adoption of the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF or, commonly, GBF). The GBF set forth a plan to reverse and halt biodiversity loss by 2030 through the achievement of 23 action-oriented targets and to live in harmony with nature by 2050 by meeting four overarching goals.

COP16 offered a chance to make progress on the AAA objectives, as they are essential to delivering on the GBF, while also ensuring equity is built into each of them. These objectives manifest in some of COP16’s most notable outcomes, including the adoption of a work program and the creation of a permanent subsidiary body on Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) under the CBD, with a recognition of the role of Afro-descendants. The outcomes also included decisions on a historic and long-overdue fund to foster equitable benefits sharing from their knowledge.

Overall, however, the international community left Cali with a long road ahead for meaningful, enduring, and equitable implementation.

Accountability
A long history of failed promises on biodiversity cast a broad shadow as the international community began negotiations at COP16. None of the biodiversity conservation targets set for 2010–2020 were fully met, making the challenge of halting and reversing biodiversity loss in the following decades much harder. While parties to the CBD have had two years since adopting the GBF to revise their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which are supposed to detail how they will fulfill their GBF obligations, only about 22 percent of countries had done so by the conclusion of the COP.

Developed countries have been particularly notorious for sidestepping accountability, especially on forest commitments. For decades, international policy has largely focused on addressing deforestation in the tropics while allowing the wealthier countries of the Global North to evade scrutiny for their own forest degradation. As countries chart their ambition under the GBF and related commitments at the intersection of nature and climate, voices from the Global South, including the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment, have begun calling for frameworks to drive more equitable accountability.

The GBF’s monitoring framework presented an opportunity to begin correcting this imbalance through the adoption of concrete, shared indicators to guide biodiversity protection and restoration. Instead, in the months leading up to COP16, negotiators began building a monitoring framework that risks cloaking business as usual under the guise of progress. Ultimately, without additional revisions and willingness to strengthen the indicators, the monitoring framework will be subject to the same inequities and weaknesses that have plagued policies for decades.

As countries look to build accountability, the enhanced transparency framework and global stocktake under the UN climate convention can provide models for how to bring more teeth into the CBD process and foster responsibility for all parties. In addition, wealthy countries need to ensure their NBSAPs are action-oriented and to hold themselves to the same standards on deforestation and forest degradation that they expect in the tropics.

There may also be opportunities to channel success elsewhere into greater accountability on biodiversity conservation. One example is the progressing ratification of the new high seas treaty, which is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for biodiversity conservation at a global scale. The treaty must be ratified by 60 nations to come into force and then be effectively implemented, both of which saw progress at COP16 with the announcement of Panama’s ratification during the COP and several countries confirming the signing of the treaty and announcing intentions to start working on the first round of high seas marine protected areas.

Alignment of biodiversity and climate efforts
Biodiversity loss and climate change are inextricably linked, requiring aligned, synergistic action. The UN biodiversity and climate conventions have historically been siloed, resulting in disconnected, sometimes conflicting decision-making and ambition. Last December, at the UN climate conference in Dubai (COP28), countries agreed to the first global stocktake, which emphasized the need to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030 and to align with the GBF.

COP16 created an opening for fostering that alignment and ensuring coordination and complementarity. Parties agreed to establish a process, with submissions of views from all stakeholders by May 2025, for coordinating between the three Rio Conventions (addressing climate, biodiversity, and desertification). This creates a pathway for ensuring that climate mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity protection and restoration mutually reinforce each other’s priorities.

At COP29, negotiators should build off of this leadership, elevating the need to integrate climate and biodiversity commitments and reinforcing the importance of an efficient, robust collaboration process. Particularly given next year’s ocean and climate summits in France and Brazil, respectively, which will thrust oceans and forests to the forefront of the climate agenda, it is imperative that countries set the stage for the alignment between biodiversity and climate commitments, create opportunities for the exchange of lessons and best practices between the conventions, and deliver more robust and ambitious climate and biodiversity plans as soon as possible, and no later than in a year’s time in 2025.

Adequacy of finance
As at COP15, the issue causing the greatest rift at COP16 was the question of how to fund the biodiversity conservation called for in the GBF. Since the signing of the GBF, positions—particularly divisions between developed and developing countries—have only hardened. The European Union announced in September that it was opposed to a key demand of developing countries: the creation of a new finance mechanism to distribute biodiversity finance. At the same time, the Ministerial Alliance for Ambition on Nature Finance released a statement from 20 Global South countries calling on the Global North to meet the commitments it made in the GBF to ensure that at least $20 billion per year is delivered from developed to developing countries by 2025 and that at least $30 billion per year is delivered by 2030.

Unfortunately, discussions on these issues started too late in the negotiations and dragged into the last day of the COP, until the meeting ended abruptly for lack of a quorum. The aborted talks adjourned with no agreed-upon strategy for increasing funds to finance nature conservation. Countries will now continue talks next year at an interim meeting.

This result is unacceptable. The vast majority of countries in the Global South will not have the resources necessary to meet their obligations in the GBF if the Global North does not meet its funding commitments.

The problem is compounded given that some of the key sticking points of biodiversity finance echo discussions about climate finance. For example, under the UN climate convention, there have been similar disagreements around appropriate finance mechanisms, such as around the creation of the Loss and Damage Fund in 2022. During those and other discussions, diverging opinions around sources of finance, transparency, and access to funding have stymied progress. Now, with the inconclusive end of COP16 on these issues, there is even larger, more entrenched distrust between developed and developing countries.

At COP29, countries need to agree to a new, ambitious climate finance goal to build the needed confidence among governments and the private sector to pursue more ambitious climate action that also drives the protection of nature; the richest and most-polluting countries must therefore dramatically enhance their efforts.

This is not charity—it is investment for economic and social justice, a matter of national, food, and energy security, and it is essential to building a climate-safer world for all.

Ultimately, all countries will get hurt by climate impacts with billions’ worth of damages. The richest countries are not immune to this (as we saw most recently in the United States and Spain), and they all need to step up. A deal on finance cannot just hinge on the United States. That was true before, and it’s truer now.

Looking forward
For both climate and nature, 2030 is a deadline that will dictate our future. By then, the international community will need to have implemented transformative change across all sectors, establishing climate-safe, nature-positive economies while ensuring equity and human rights.

Government progress, including at the subnational level, on accountability, alignment, and adequacy of finance is particularly critical given the unprecedented attention from the private sector on biodiversity and climate risks and outcomes. Companies and investors had a major presence at COP16—they are paying close attention to these negotiations and to the growing risks of failing to take action. Signals from the government are critical to pushing money flows and supply chains toward sustainable, equitable outcomes and building the structures that will transform business practices.

COP16 made important strides but ultimately left far too much on the table. At COP29 and beyond, parties need to renew trust and pursue their resolve to rapidly scale up and invest in holistic, equitable, all-of-planet approaches that propel action at every level of society and government, finally turning global commitments into reality on the ground. COP29 needs to and can deliver.

Note: Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President of NRDC International, Amanda Maxwell, Managing Director of NRDC Global, Zak Smith, Senior Attorney of NRDC International, and Jennifer Skene, Director of NRDC Global Northern Forests Policy, International, wrote this article. It was republished with the permission of NRDC International.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Make Health Top of Climate Negotiations Agenda—Global Climate & Health Alliance

Climate Action, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP29, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

COP29

Community health worker in Nepal helping giving polio vaccine to a child. Climate change-induced events are affecting basic health facilities directly. Photo: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

Community health worker in Nepal helping giving polio vaccine to a child. Climate change-induced events are affecting basic health facilities directly. Photo: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

BAKU, Nov 14 2024 (IPS) – Climate change and its impact on public health hasn’t made the top of the agenda even at a forum like the UN Climate Conference, but is should, say the health community.


Understanding the gap, more than 100 organizations from across the international health and climate community came together as the Global Climate and Health Alliance and have called wealthy countries to protect people’s health by committing to provide climate finance in the order of a trillion dollars annually, in addition to global action with leadership from the highest emitting countries to end the fossil fuel era.

Alliance endorsed nine recommendations for the summit through a policy brief—‘A COP29 for People and Planet’ which includes financing to community engagement.

In an interview with Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance IPS asked about the recommendations and why they were necessary.

Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance.

Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance.

IPS: How and why the international health and climate community came together—why was it necessary, right before COP29?

Miller: For many years, the UN climate negotiations have been going on. For many years, health was not a part of the conversation. And in fact, the Global Climate and Health Alliance was established because a handful of health organizations felt like this is an important health issue, and we need to get health into that conversation, and we’re not seeing it there. Over the years, more and more health organizations have really begun to understand the threat that climate change poses to people’s health. I think a big contributing factor as well is that we are now seeing those impacts of climate change in real time in communities all over the world—every country, every region, is seeing some combination of extreme weather events.

This is directly impacting the communities that we serve, and we have to raise the alarm bell and make sure that we’re pushing for those solutions that are going to protect people’s health. The report, specifically the policy recommendations, is really an attempt to take what we’re seeing from the health perspective, the concerns that we have. About the threat that this poses for people’s health and the reality of the impacts on people’s health, and somewhat translate that into terms that make sense for negotiators to pick that up, understand it, and use it in the context of those actual decision-making processes in the climate talks.

IPS: Wealth is concentrated on one side of the world or one section of the community, but burden—especially public health burden—is on marginalized communities who don’t have access to basic resources. Is there any way that gap will be narrowed in the near future?

Miller: This is such a critically important issue. And unfortunately, we’re seeing some real extremes of wealth disparity—ironically, in countries that have huge wealth disparity within the country, everyone is less healthy than they would be if there was less health disparity. If people were more equal, that would be healthier for everyone. But the reality is, many people, as you say, don’t have the resources to access the basic necessities of life. Healthy food, clean water, electricity of any kind, but particularly clean energy, even access to education, access to basic health care—all of those things are really vital to growing up healthy and to living a healthy life. And the thing that is so clear is that access to those basic necessities early in life makes a tremendous difference in being able to grow up healthy, resilient, and productive.

It’s a huge impact on the individual that’s growing up without those resources—it’s also an impact on society. So, a society that has people that grow up with enough resources to be resilient, healthy, and well educated is a healthier society. And I would argue that that extends not only within a community or even a country but also internationally. So, if we have huge disparities internationally, that’s also kind of a drain on the world, a challenge for the world as a whole. It leads to conflict, it leads to friction, and it leads to difficulty making decisions to tackle climate change together. I would argue that it’s really in the best interest of wealthy countries to make those investments to help the lowest-income, vulnerable countries have the resource they need to address those basic necessities. I think it’s fundamental. It’s the right thing to do.

I think for so many reasons, it’s important that the wealthy countries do step up and provide this kind of resources.

IPS: While talking about the resources, wealthy countries are already far behind on their climate finance commitment. Do you think they will consider financing to protect people’s health?

Miller: This is a major focus of this year’s climate negotiations. In fact, on the table is a major discussion about a new pot of financing for climate change, and I don’t think we know the answer yet as to how that’s going to come out.

It often gets talked about as we can’t economically afford to put in that money. I think a key question is, what is the cost of inaction? If we fail to act, we’re already seeing. The cost of failing to act on climate change is immense. The cost of failing to enable countries to be better, prepared to be better, to have their systems, their water and sanitation systems be stronger, their hospitals be more prepared, etc. The costs are just staggering. So, when we’re talking about, can we afford to put the money into climate action, I think we also need to ask the question, can we afford not to? I think the answer is no. And then the last thing that I’ll say about this is, and this is also important, we are currently subsidizing fossil fuels more than a trillion a year in direct public subsidies. So that’s public money going into supporting the production and use of fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change.

So again, when we’re talking about, can we afford to or are we prepared to invest in climate action and put money into a Climate Fund? We need to ask ourselves the question. What is the cost of not doing so? And then where else is public money going that could be going into moving us in the right direction, towards clean energy, towards climate resilience?

IPS: You talked about the extreme weather events. In recent years, extreme events contributed by climate change are causing destruction en masse; often its monetary losses will be counted but its public health impact is still to be discussed. How do you see climate and health discussion moving forward especially regarding financing?

Miller: I don’t think it happens by itself. In my own country, the US, we are seeing climate-exacerbated disaster, and yet people not accepting the role of climate change in that and not accepting that the health impacts, the dislocation, and the trauma that they’re experiencing were caused by climate change.

It’s not necessarily going to happen just by itself, in in other countries as well. People may be feeling the impacts, but not connecting the dots, and not because of disinformation, not recognizing.

I do think that it’s important for those who know about those connections—the scientists, the advocates, the health professionals who are looking at these issues, the academic departments—to talk about it and articulate what those connections are.

But then I do think that each time one of those extreme weather events does create the opportunity for that conversation to happen, and we need to step up to those opportunities.

And I think that can make a really big difference in changing the nature of the conversation and opening-up possibility for a deeper conversation about what we need to do about this.

IPS: Let’s talk about the report. It talks about healthy climate action for most affected communities. Can you explain it for our audience and what would be the role of the community?

Miller: It’s so often the case that decisions get made without consulting communities affected by those decisions. There can be very good will that is, and good intentions behind that, and yet the results are not going to be as good if you’re not working with the people affected by the issue. The thing that community members know that nobody else knows in the way that they know it is their lived experience of what’s going on in their community, their resources in terms of their own knowledge, their own community relationships, their own resilience, their own techniques. There may be techniques that they know for growing food and their ecosystem.

There may be knowledge you know for forced communities, knowledge that they have of the force that they live in. There is very deep knowledge that communities have about their circumstances, their context, and their needs and what they can bring in terms of solutions, so effectively working with communities means really involving them in the conversation from the get-go when designing programs and projects and all of that sort of thing. And I think when it comes even to financing, thinking about how finance for Climate Solutions reaches that community level.

I think another thing that’s really important to recognize is that climate change puts a huge strain on all of us. It’s a huge psychological strain just to live in the climate era. Enabling communities to come together and be a part of the solution helps to heal that burden.

IPS: You touched on mental health. The report also talks about mental health and wellbeing outcomes—we are seeing people struggling with climate-related post- and pre-event psychological burden in different forms. How do you see this dimension moving forward?

Miller: That is one area where I’ve definitely seen significant progress in the last several years. I think I’ve seen significant progress in increasingly recognizing the health impacts of climate change and the health threat that climate change poses, and then within that, significant progress in beginning to recognize and acknowledge and understand the mental health dimensions of this. There’s a long way to go, but it is a part of the conversation, and it’s an important one.

There are mental health impacts before or after an extreme weather event, and that can show up as kind of anxiety and stress, a variety of things. People who go through major extreme weather events, like the post-traumatic stress of having experienced that and having gone through it, not knowing if it might happen again or when it might happen again.

There’s also the sense of losing one’s world, losing the world that one grew up in, losing the environment that one, the world that one grew up in and seeing those things kind of slip away—this sort of a cultural, ecological and cultural dimension to that. And if you know, failing to acknowledge that mental health dimension both leaves people suffering and also leaves people sort of disempowered.

I think community is important in response to those kinds of mental health challenges—the kind of recognition that there are actions that one can take and ways that one can come together. And some of those actions may be kind of the direct actions of sustainability, working to live a more sustainable lifestyle. I think even, maybe even more important than that, are actions of coming together with the community to influence the kinds of decisions that get made, to call for the kinds of policies that will turn the needle on climate change, to have a voice in the larger conversation. I think that can be even more powerful.

IPS: Do you have anything to add that we may have missed or you wanted to add?

Miller: I think the one thing that I would add is that, right now, every government that’s part of the Paris Agreement is in the process of drafting new national climate commitments.

It’s an important opportunity, not just at the international level, and as at these big international climate talks, but at home, in every single country, for people to call on their governments to make commitments that are aligned with protecting their health from climate change.

Also, I think it’s important to continue to focus on what we can do. The headwinds can feel pretty strong. Addressing climate change will be something that we’re doing for the rest of our lives, not just for the rest of my life—anybody alive today will be dealing with this issue for the rest of our lives. So, we need to maintain our stamina around it and know that this is a long-term commitment and know that it’s worth it.

IPS UN Bureau Report