International aid: ‘The money isn’t coming back anytime soon’, Fletcher warns

UN News: You have said that that policymakers who signed off on aid cuts should come to Afghanistan to see the effect they’re having on the population. You said the effect of aid cuts is that millions die. Do you use this kind of blunt language when you’re talking to these policymakers in private?

Tom Fletcher: Yes, I do. Of course, there is a bit of a time lag before you really see the impact of the cuts, but here, 400 clinics closed in the last few weeks. That has a real-world impact and it’s become much more real for me on this trip.

I’ve just come from a meeting with NGOs, and they’re laying off half their staff. The local NGO’s that we’re keen to protect in the midst of all this, have been the hardest hit.

We try and find different ways to communicate this in slightly gentler terms, but ultimately, of course, people will die as a result of these cuts.

That’s the great tragedy at the heart of it now.

UN News: How do the politicians respond?

I think there are broadly two camps here. You’ve got politicians who are doing this really reluctantly, forced to make really tough decisions because their economies are struggling and because of pressures from taxpayers to do things differently. They know the importance of humanitarian efforts and they’re very sad about the choices they’re having to make.

Then there is another group of politicians who, I fear, celebrate, certainly in their public messages. They seem to boast about – and take credit for – aid cuts. That’s the group that I would love to bring to sit with a mother who has lost her child because she was forced to cycle pregnant to a hospital three hours away.

You show leadership on the world stage by being out there helping countries to deal with these challenges at source. I don’t know which of those arguments work with which constituencies, so we have to adapt and be creative in how we make the case.

We also have to be firm in defending what we do and take pride in the fact that the humanitarian community has taken millions out of poverty and saved hundreds of millions of lives.

UN News: You’ve become the UN emergency relief chief at a particularly tough time, in terms of ensuring the UN’s ability to help the most vulnerable. In February you announced 20 per cent cuts to your department. How will you make those cuts in a way that doesn’t make the job even harder?

Tom Fletcher: It’s rough. Really brutal choices are being made and the sector will probably shrink by one third. The money that’s been cut isn’t going to come back anytime soon, and there may be more funding cuts ahead.

We will be looking for new partners, and trying to convince the sceptics to bring the private sector in and change the public conversation around solidarity. We have to work with the money that we have, not the money that we need or the money that we wish we had.

I’m really positive about the way that Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, has talked about the need to protect life-saving aid. 

Dialogue is going on, I’m not giving up and I’m really positive about the way that Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, has talked about the need to protect life-saving aid. I really want to get into that conversation with him and see what his vision is for America’s role in saving lives around the world.

UN News: Given the current situation, are we going to have to completely rethink what aid entails and how it’s funded?

Tom Fletcher: We’re going to have to change. We have to preserve the best of what we’ve learnt and have confidence in what we’ve delivered so far, but we’re going through a process now that we call the “humanitarian reset”.

First of all, we’re becoming smaller and we’re trying to do that in a way that does as little damage as possible and minimises the hit to the essential life-saving work we do.

Alongside that, we’re becoming more efficient and smarter. I launched on my first day in office, a big efficiency drive across the sector.

The IASC, the body that coordinates our sector, has backed that up and actually taken it to the next level in terms of taking the layers out of the system and making sure we end the turf wars and focus on what we each do well, the extra value we bring, and ensure that we do much more at a local level, close to the communities we serve.

The UN relief chief Tom Fletcher, visits a hospital in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

UN News: Do many Member States still believe in the importance of international aid?

Tom Fletcher: Absolutely. A number of donors are staying solid despite the funding crises that they’re all facing. We’ve got new donors emerging and growing. I’ve been in The Gulf, and I was in China last week, and engagement there is deepening.

We’ve got new donors emerging, and engagement is deepening

We’ve got more innovative ideas about how to bring in the private sector and also I believe really strongly in the role of individuals in finding ways to ensure that we’re reaching wider movement beyond governments and Member States.

UN News: Returning to Afghanistan, the de facto authorities [The Taliban] have severely reduced access to education and employment prospects for women and girls. Are you able to have a constructive discussion about this with the regime?

Tom Fletcher: Yes, we are. There are two really core issues here for us. One is the role of women in humanitarian work: we simply cannot deliver without them. They are brilliant, brilliant colleagues, we rely on them completely and we couldn’t be here without them.

And the second is the wider issue around rights for women and girls, including education and the fact that millions of girls have had that right stolen from them over the last three years.

These are difficult conversations, but I come at this as a former diplomat, as someone who believes in dialogue, who believes in respect and trust and listening, and in recognizing that we have different cultures, different traditions, different heritages and different beliefs that I don’t hold.

Tom Fletcher, the UN humanitarian meets women at an economic development programme in Afghanistan.

UN News: Before you began this job, did you have a goal in mind, that you want to achieve before the end of your mandate as the head of humanitarian affairs?

Tom Fletcher: The average head of OCHA lasts about three years, they burn through us pretty quickly. The travel schedule is very hectic and you’re dealing with the world’s worst crises so there’s a bit of wear and tear along the way.

It’s our job to save hundreds of millions of lives and to define everything we do against that yardstick.

So, my number one objective was to survive as long as possible, because I think it’s traumatic for an organization to get new people in, train them and have them up and running. Being around for a period of time, learning from the organization and from those we serve, and then putting that into action is a serious objective in itself.

I did come into it with an objective around the reform of the humanitarian sector, well before Donald Trump, Elon Musk and others started talking about efficiency and prioritization and cuts. I do believe that we can do this much more effectively and much closer to those we serve and so I was already determined to deliver that.

And then thirdly, the big one is ultimately about saving lives. I believe it’s our job to save hundreds of millions of lives and to define everything we do against that yardstick. 

Source link

Bitcoin Mining: Researchers find it environmentally unsustainable, threat to future energy

Taken as a share of the market price, the climate change impacts of mining the digital cryptocurrency Bitcoin is more comparable to the impacts of extracting and refining crude oil than mining gold, according to an analysis published in Scientific Reports by researchers at The University of New Mexico.

The authors suggest that rather than being considered akin to ‘digital gold’, Bitcoin should instead be compared to much more energy-intensive products such as beef, natural gas, and crude oil.

“We find no evidence that Bitcoin mining is becoming more sustainable over time,” said UNM Economics Associate Professor Benjamin A. Jones. “Rather, our results suggest the opposite: Bitcoin mining is becoming dirtier and more damaging to the climate over time. In short, Bitcoin’s environmental footprint is moving in the wrong direction.”

In December 2021, Bitcoin had an approximately 960 billion US dollars market capitalization with a roughly 41 percent global market share among cryptocurrencies. Although known to be energy intensive, the extent of Bitcoin’s climate damages is unclear.

Researchers at The University of New Mexico find digital cryptocurrency Bitcoin is more comparable to the impacts of extracting and refining crude oil than mining gold./CREDIT:
University of New Mexico

Jones and colleagues Robert Berrens and Andrew Goodkind present economic estimates of climate damages from Bitcoin mining between January 2016 and December 2021. They report that in 2020 Bitcoin mining used 75.4 terawatt hours of electricity (TWh) – higher electricity usage than Austria (69.9 TWh) or Portugal (48.4 TWh) in that year.

“Globally, the mining, or production, of Bitcoin is using tremendous amounts of electricity, mostly from fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas. This is causing huge amounts of air pollution and carbon emissions, which is negatively impacting our global climate and our health,” said Jones. “We find several instances between 2016-2021 where Bitcoin is more damaging to the climate than a single Bitcoin is actually worth. Put differently, Bitcoin mining, in some instances, creates climate damages in excess of a coin’s value. This is extremely troubling from a sustainability perspective.”

The authors assessed Bitcoin climate damages according to three sustainability criteria: whether the estimated climate damages are increasing over time; whether the climate damages of Bitcoin exceeds the market price; and how the climate damages as a share of market price compare to other sectors and commodities.

They find that the CO2 equivalent emissions from electricity generation for Bitcoin mining have increased 126-fold from 0.9 tonnes per coin in 2016, to 113 tonnes per coin in 2021. Calculations suggest each Bitcoin mined in 2021 generated 11,314 US Dollars (USD) in climate damages, with total global damages exceeding 12 billion USD between 2016 and 2021. Damages peaked at 156% of the coin price in May 2020, suggesting that each 1 USD of Bitcoin market value generated led to 1.56 USD in global climate damages that month.

“Across the class of digitally scarce goods, our focus is on those cryptocurrencies that rely on proof-of-work (POW) production techniques, which can be highly energy intensive,” said Regents Professor of Economics Robert Berrens. “Within broader efforts to mitigate climate change, the policy challenge is creating governance mechanisms for an emergent, decentralized industry, which includes energy-intensive POW cryptocurrencies. We believe that such efforts would be aided by measurable, empirical signals concerning potentially unsustainable climate damages, in monetary terms.”

Finally, the authors compared Bitcoin climate damages to damages from other industries and products such as electricity generation from renewable and non-renewable sources, crude oil processing, agricultural meat production, and precious metal mining. Climate damages for Bitcoin averaged 35% of its market value between 2016 and 2021. This share for Bitcoin was slightly less than the climate damages as a share of market value of electricity produced by natural gas (46%) and gasoline produced from crude oil (41%), but more than those of beef production (33%) and gold mining (4%).

The authors conclude that Bitcoin does not meet any of the three key sustainability criteria they assessed it against.  Absent voluntary switching away from proof-of-work mining, as very recently done for the cryptocurrency Ether, then potential regulation may be required to make Bitcoin mining sustainable.

Also Read:

Where do high-energy particles that endanger satellites, astronauts, airplanes come from?

Asian tiger mosquito, native to warm climate is now gaining ground in Illinois’s harsh winter

Soon new material to replace rogue plastic; It biodegrades in ocean water within 4 weeks

World Bank Provides Aid for cleaning of Ganga River

World Bank has sanctioned a loan of US $ 1 billion for funding Institutional Development and for construction of priority infrastructure projects for municipal waste water treatment and solid waste treatment on the main stem of Ganga in the five Ganga basin states of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal.

Government of India has withdrawn a cumulative amount of US $ 91.26 million (Rs. 550.48 crore) under this loan till date.

Cleaning of river is a continuous process. Namami Gange Programme has been launched as a holistic approach covering all existing ongoing projects and new initiative. Under Namami Gange project total number of 173 projects for various activities such as sewage infrastructure, river front development, ghat and crematoria, ghat cleaning, river surface cleaning, afforestation and biodiversity conservation and rural sanitation etc. have been sanctioned. Out of 173 projects 41 numbers of projects have been completed so far.

This information was given by Union Minister of State for Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Balyan in a written reply in Lok Sabha today.