Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
Popular content
Today's Top News
UN Report Warns of Threat to Human Progress from Climate Change
Human development report says inaction on climate change puts at risk decades of progress on education and health
The United Nations warned today that a continued failure to tackle climate change was putting at risk decades of progress in improving the lives of the world's poorest people.
The UN report says markets are weak on sustainability and cause environmental disasters such as the 2007 mud flow caused by natural gas drilling which forced thousands to flee their homes in Java, Indonesia. (Photograph: Fully Handoko/EPA) In its annual flagship report on the state of the world, the UN said unsustainable patterns of consumption and production posed the biggest challenge to the anti-poverty drive.
"For human development to become truly sustainable, the close link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions needs to be severed," the UN said in its annual human development report (HDR).
Celebrating its 20th anniversary, the HDR said the past two decades had seen "substantial progress" in human development despite the impact of the financial crisis, which had resulted in 34 million people losing their jobs and an additional 64 million people dropping below the $1.25 a day income poverty threshold.
"Most people are healthier, live longer, are more educated and have more access to goods and services. Even in countries facing adverse economic conditions, people's health and education have greatly improved."
The HDR assesses progress by using three main measures of well-being – income, life expectancy and education – to compile a human development index (HDI). Since the early 1990s, the HDI has increased by 18%, with only three countries – the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe – having lower human development than 20 years ago.
"There has been massive progress over time if you look beyond income to education and health," said Jeni Klugman, director of the Human Development Report office. "On empowerment, it is a positive story as the number of people living in democracies is up. On the equality side the story is less good."
Klugman pointed to positive developments in countries such as Nepal, where infant mortality has come down from shockingly high levels, and Ethiopia where access to schooling has shot up. Other African countries that have seen significant improvements in the Human Development Index included Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Rwanda and Uganda.
But Klugman warned of the dangers posed by climate change. "There are risks and threats. Climate change is the big one and it could derail progress. That's why the 2011 report will look at the issue of sustainability."
The UN said that on one estimate, the adverse effects of climate change on grain yields would push prices up, more than doubling the price of wheat. In a worst case scenario, the report added, by 2050 per capita consumption of cereals would fall by a fifth, leaving 25 million additional children malnourished, with South Asia the worst affected.
"Climate change may be the single factor that makes the future very different, impeding the continuing progress in human development that history would lead us to expect. While international agreements have been difficult to achieve and policy responses have been generally slow, the broad consensus is clear: climate change is happening, and it can derail human development.
Overall, the UN said poor countries had been closing the human development gap with rich countries over the past two decades, particularly in health and education. The countries reporting the slowest progress were those in sub-Saharan Africa struck by the HIV epidemic and parts of the former Soviet Union suffering increased adult mortality.
The UN said it was striking that the top 10 list of fast improvers contained several countries not typically described as top performers – such as Morocco and Algeria. Ethiopia came 11th, with three other sub-Saharan African countries (Botswana, Benin and Bukina Faso) in the top 25.
Over the past 40 years, a quarter of developing countries saw their HDI increase less than 20%, another quarter more than 65%. The UN said that half of this disparity was the result of different starting points, but added that countries with "similar starting points experience remarkably different evolutions, suggesting that country factors such as policies, institutions and geography are important".
Asia's fastest growing economies – China, Indonesia and South Korea – were among the countries that had showed the greatest progress in improving their HDI, but the UN said the top 10 also included Nepal, Oman and Tunisia where progress in the non-income dimensions of human development had been equally remarkable.
"The divide between developed and developing countries persists: a small subset of countries has remained at the top of the world income distribution, and only a handful of countries that started out poor have joined that high-income group", the report said. "The gap in human development across the world, while narrowing, remains huge."
Championing the role of governments in human development, the report said that markets were generally "very bad at ensuring the provision of public goods, such as security, stability, health and education.
"For example, firms that produce cheap labour-intensive goods or that exploit natural resources may not want a more educated workforce and may care little about their workers' health if there is an abundant pool of labour. Without complementary societal and state action, markets can be weak on environmental sustainability, creating the conditions for environmental degradation, even for such disasters as mud flows in Java and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

28 Comments so far
Show AllSomeone's unclear on the concept. I suppose you could say that the extinction of life on Earth would "inhibit human progress", but most people would probably choose different words.
Yes, extinction is one scenario, but an outlying, and very long term one. The far more certain short-term scenarios are for storms, droughts and crop failures in the countries that can least afford them.
When watching the numbers roll on a gasoline pump, which I fortunately have to do less than once a month, the image of an Iraqi child's blood going into the tank is now being replaced with a slowly starving child in the unbearable heat of Africa or India.
I agree with your comment, with some added ideas about extinction. Extinction is a scenario now at play: the so-called "sixth extinction." Ecologists currently believe that species are going extinct at a rate not seen since the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago. In essence, this is what the biodiversity crisis is all about. Additionally, extinction events can be very rapid or more long term: it depends on the cause of the event. The sixth extinction is driven by "human progress" and subsequent habitat loss, spread of invasive species and geographically unconstrained pathogens, pollution, and the warming climate.
Most of the human population in developed countries--those of us accessing the world via computers--often have little more than casual contact with nature, so we don't register the fact that we are in the extinction event right now. Extinction appears to most of us to be a long way off. On the other hand, people in Haiti, for example, probably aren't aware that they are on the leading edge of the human experience of extinction, but they are. They are a modern day Easter Island: trees all gone, soil washed away, water contaminated, overpopulated... The signs are ripe for Haiti, after this weekend's tropical storm or hurricane, to sustain a stunning loss of life.
In my opinion, global climate disruption is part of the more encompassing phenomenon of the sixth extinction. That said, if "climate change" is "a threat to human progress," then the sixth extinction event has the potential to drive our species from its current dominance to something much less significant. I don't foresee the extinction of all humans (though it could happen, but, as you say, as kind of an outlier event), but I do expect a dramatic drop in population as unsustainable consumption further shreds the web of life. It's a rough and rocky road ahead, and it may well come upon us faster than we think.
And I agree with yours, but in these times of zero-compassion, it is hard to argue for species diversity. The past efforts to get people concerned about AGW by focusing on the fate of polar bears was a disaster.
Aside from food sources, and humans themselves, no one no longer cares about wild species dying off. Most affluent USAns will only care about extinction when the massive fish die-offs in the acid, anoxic oceans (per the P-Tr extinciton event 251 my ago) causes them to be unable to get sushi or seafood anymore.
I think you are unfortunately correct about the self-absorption of affluent USAns, and the general lack of compassion. Some future scholar will trace this breakdown in culture, and its effects on the planetary environment, human affairs, etc.
The images of Iraqi children and starving Africans as you fill your gas tank are vivid. I wonder what effect they would have if put into a video.
The oil firms and the Koch brothers have done a thorough job of dominating the discourse. There must be a way, or many ways, to fight the prevailing conservative paradigm through media and art.
"On empowerment, it is a positive story as the number of people living in democracies is up. On the equality side the story is less good."
So how does the number of people living in democracy end up with less equality. Maybe people should learn to separate the word capitalist from democracy at whatever grad school they go to and if this distinction isn't make clear then I would suggest going to another university.
RR
Something has to trim the human herd.....
That would be someone.
We are doing that just fine thank you very much.Of course, other countries are more target rich than Afghanistan. We can do Yemen but small beans. I guess we are left with Iran and North Korea.
Fascinating (on a macabre level) how people seem to embrace human extinction andor associated deaths of a great deal of people as if its some sort of panacea for the ills of this planet.
nice one..........i think some words need to be replaced within this statement:
'The United Nations warned today that a continued failure to tackle climate change was putting at risk decades of progress in improving the lives of the world's poorest people.'
climate change might be better replaced with greed and capitalism.........
I would simply state that human progress threatens the continuation of human progress.
I certainly am not rooting for massive human mortality or extinction. I simply believe that we're heading in that direction. Personally, I find it tragically ironic that, at the threshold of incredible insights into mind and consciousness (thanks to neuroscience), which suggests a possible transition to reconciling our needs and wants with a finite planet, we're more likely to crash and burn.
The planet is not "ill" and in need of a "panacea." Evolution continues, and cares not a whit for our species. It'll all work out in time.
That is, of course, the very same UN which keeps rubber-stamping wars of aggression.
The UN is money, power and agenda-driven. It is probably one of the most corrupt - if not THE most corrupt - unelected institutions on the planet.
The UN? Personally, I'd go with the World Bank and IMF, myself.
Emotion is not science. There is absolutely no evidence... I speak of measurable evidence, not computer-modeled hocus-pocus conjecture... that climate change will be catastrophic.
Human destruction to the planet due to overpopulation however will be, but that has nothing to do with CO2.
It's funny how people mention 'filling up' while being 'concerned'. Make up your mind what you believe, people. You cannot sit on the fence and want to live in the 21st century, if you're against the effects of such lifestyle. Don't be hypocrites: Back to the 18th century you go!
You have bred the planet to extinction. It's not the use of oil, but the fact that you have multiplied yourself to an unbearable level, that will bring the biosphere to collapse. The problem is not in the use of oil and gas and coal, but instead it is between your very own legs. CO2 is just the convenient scapegoat, so that you don't need to feel guilty about your own actions.
If you believe that climate change will be catastrophic, AND that human activity is the cause, then I must ask... WHY? oh WHY then, are you still living a 21st century lifestyle?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ0iDoZhLKk ... stuttering emotional monkeys being unable to refute science, repeating the same eco-talking points over and over again. The CO2-gospel is not based on science. It is based on data manipulation and emotion.
We have not decided that this is the way we want to live and these are the things we want---gas guzzlers, fast food pollution corruption etc. No we have been trying to fight against that and no we don't have to go back to the 18th century if we don't like the way things are going. What we have to do is free science from the imperatives of capital and solve our common problems using our rational faculties, not according to the economic demands that ensure the enrichment of the few. To get to this point a person needs to relearn everything they were taught in Kindergarden on up---this is a free country, we live in a democracy, the market system is the best or at least less evil than socialism, Santa Claus is coming so is Jesus, I didn't choose this system anymore than I chose my parents it was here when I got here and I have done everything I could to make sure that we reach the next stage of human development and supercede this capitalist social order just the way most of us have gotten rid of the notion of the divine right of kings. Not easy but doable. I would say that with our intellectual capacities which are greatly reduced thanks to the profit system, the world would be much better off without capitalism-we have evolved as a species due to our ability to cooperate and empathize with one another not this unnatural market competition that has been around for the last 400 or so years and damned near ruined humanity. It is ruining humanity but the job is far from complete. The problem is we cannot screw around-not when we have the capacity to destroy humankind through warfare.
Cheers,
RR
Thanks for taking this guy on. Well done.
I don't have a bone to pick with what you write. I don't own a car. I don't eat fast food. The vast majority of the excesses we decry are the direct result of population density/overpopulation. Not long ago I watched the film Food Inc. At least to me, it was obvious that the excesses in factory food production which the film portrays, are not the cause, but the effects. If we want to remove the effects, we must remove the cause, and whether people like it or not, the cause is human overpopulation. Only once the level of human population recedes to about a billion or less, will the oceans and forests and species get a breather and be on the way to recovery. We all have our "ecological footprint". Every human born into this world has a certain level of pre-programmed ecological destruction 'built in', regardless of good intentions. That is why I have been saying that humans need to limit themselves to one child maximum per couple, until humanity has receded to a billion. Of course that will never happen. I am a realist about that. That's also why I know that the biosphere is doomed, despite all the side-shows. Unelected corrupt institutions are trying to pressure governments into some form of carbon-taxation, but more taxation will just bring more poverty, not less humans, and the environmental destruction will roll on.
As for science: It cannot be free as long as it is financed by corporate 'grants' or in the service of corporations/NGO's and such like. The greatest (foundational) inventions have come to us not by these means, but by people who had a genuine interest in discovery, without monetary pollution.
About the relearning, yes, you are correct. We are neither free, living in a democracy, nor all the rest. I am not a Capitalist, and I am also not a Socialist. I cannot agree with any system of coercion, however "well-meaning". I can only agree with a system (for myself) to which I give consent, and I would expect nothing less for my neighbour. If I want something, and s/he doesn't, then I should be able to participate within that sort of system with likeminded people, without my neighbour being forced into the same, whatever it may be, either through forced participation or funding. Of course participation applies equally to benefit and obligation. If someone does not want to partake in the building and maintenance, they also cannot benefit.
Anyway, I believe that most people know deep down that we have killed the planet in the future (writing in past tense on purpose, because it is already accomplished without having become reality yet). By the middle of the century, there will likely be 9 billion of us, maybe more. Food production will be owned by such corporations like Monsanto. Cheap energy sources will be mostly depleted. The forests will be almost gone, so that all 9 billion of us can wipe our collective asses and get the latest junk mail in our mail boxes, and the air will be much harder to breathe.
Cause and effect. The ecology cannot be saved without poverty and/or population reduction. Capitalism and billionaires cannot "survive" without constant population/slave growth or ever-increasing cost of living, which will also result in poverty. Human instinct will always lead to overbreeding, and filling every available spot on this planet, to whatever extent the surrounds allow (of course, the surrounds have now become 'global', instead of 20km radius).
I do not support active and forced population control. I support education. Unfortunately humans are not nearly as smart and intelligent as we believe ourselves to be. Even in areas most affected by poverty and starvation, people still pump out babies to a far greater extent than in the developed world, even though they cannot possibly feed them. UN Food aid? Sorry. I don't think so. To bring about a measure of equilibrium again, population has to fall in line with the ability of the local environs to support that level of population. Yes, it may sound cruel, but the cruelty is on the part of the people who cannot feed themselves and yet make babies they cannot feed. Evolution and behavior-observation prove that humans are really just stupid animals in disguise.
"There is no evidence that climate change will be catastrophic..."
Of course there isn't, since your dependent clause is in the future tense! No one can gather evidence from the future.
"You have bred the planet to extinction." (Write much? Quite the crappy sentence there...)
I sincerely hope this means you have not and will not reproduce.
This UN bean counting bullshit is part of the problem. They gather data with some preconceived notions of human progress. NEVER do they consider a powerful elite governing a country as regressive.
The elite look at studies like this and probably do high fives and joke about how what they are doing is 'working'.
If civilization is defined as the move of most humans to cities, then we are totally destructive as a species. Cities are the single most destructive phenomenum to hit nature in all of ecological history on earth. Cities are BAD for nature. Yet there are scads of people who go ballistic if anyone questions all these cherished notions of civilization and civil living.
Look up UN Agenda 21. Here's the plan: Humans will be limited to 10% of the land area on earth. We will be stacked and packed in cities with mass transportation, limited mobility and no personal vehicles. From 50 to 70 percent of the land area on earth will be OFF LIMITS to humans so the earth can 'heal'.
Sounds great, eh?
It's a lie. Don't believe it. It's just another excuse to limit your rights and herd you to the depopulation sterilization/suicide centers.
The elite really do want to 'save the planet'....for them.
You aren't included.
'Human Progress' is code speech similar to 'compassionate conservative'.
And you think this UN Agenda 21 would ever come to the US? I somehow don't think so.
I have time and again posted my thoughts about the scams associated with climate change.
Facts on the Ground.
* The world is dynamic not static.
* The climate changes with or without human activity.
* Data collected by the IPCC was intentionally erroneous.
* Data contradicting the "settled" science was rejected.
* Some sensors were placed near heat sources.
* carbon credit fraud has been identified, similar to CDO's.
* The RGGI has refused to provide purchasers of credits.
* Hedge Fund firm D.E. Shaw is associated Larry Summers.
* Harvard University buys electricity from First Wind.
* First Wind suddenly pulled it IPO last week.
This has nothing to do with the environment. Even the Mafia makes donations to charity from time to time. Keep watching the Banks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-05/soros-panel-draft-says-bank-taxes-c02-auctions-can-fund-climate-aid.html
I am currently reading Stephen Kings "Under the Dome". Why does Larry Summers, the IPCC et.al. remind me of Big Jim Rennie?
And I have sent this to at least a few people. Here's at ya .
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Thanks! How toxic is Larry Summers?
This toxic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHQ2Xh55jI.Q
Here's a great clip from Bill Maher on the false "balance" of the"Climate Change Debate" in the context of the "Rally For Sanity"
http://tinyurl.com/2a4b2ae
The biggest threat to human progress is human progress.
We have gratefully entered the most glorious progress trap.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "Soylent Green" on this post. Probably the "ultimate solution."