Oxfam International Blogs - greenhouse emissions http://l.blogs.oxfam/en/tags/greenhouse-emissions en 5 critical things we learned from the latest IPCC report on climate change http://l.blogs.oxfam/en/blogs/14-03-31-5-critical-things-we-learned-latest-ipcc-report-climate-change <div class="field field-name-body"><p>Today leading international experts on climate change, the IPCC, presented their latest report on the impacts of climate change on humanity, and what we can do about it. It’s a lengthy report, so we’ve boiled it down to Oxfam's five key takeaways on climate change and hunger.</p> <h3>1. Climate change: the impacts on crops are worse than we thought.</h3> <p><strong>Climate change has already meant declines in global yields of staple crops, and it is set to get worse.</strong></p> <p>Not so long ago, some people suggested crops could actually grow better because of climate change. Not any more. The IPCC is clear that we are already seeing the effect of climate change on food production. That will come as no surprise to farmers like<strong><a href="http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cs-russia-drought-adaptation-270913-en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> Vladimir </a></strong>or<strong><a href="http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/women-farmers-south-africa-adapt-climate-change-feed-families" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> Auntie Jacoba</a></strong>. But what is more striking is that the IPCC finds that climate change has meant significant declines not just in some areas in developing countries, but in aggregate global yields for staple crops like wheat and maize. Harvests will continue to be hit hard in the future, both in developing countries and in major crop exporters, at the same time as demand for crops is expected to rise rapidly. That doesn't add up to a more food secure future for our planet.</p> <blockquote><p>Key figure from <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23IPCC&amp;src=hash" rel="nofollow">#IPCC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23AR5&amp;src=hash" rel="nofollow">#AR5</a> - observed crop yield declines since 1960s. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Climatechange&amp;src=hash" rel="nofollow">#Climatechange</a> impacts now <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ZeroHunger&amp;src=hash" rel="nofollow">#ZeroHunger</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23hunger&amp;src=hash" rel="nofollow">#hunger</a> <a href="http://t.co/7al2P3M6dI" rel="nofollow">pic.twitter.com/7al2P3M6dI</a></p> <p>— Tim Gore (@tim_e_gore) <a href="https://twitter.com/tim_e_gore/statuses/450556135615913984" rel="nofollow">March 31, 2014</a></p></blockquote> <h3>2. Climate change also means higher food prices for most people.</h3> <p><strong>Most people will feel the impact of climate change on food through the price they pay at their local market or supermarket.</strong></p> <p>In the years since the last IPCC report, there have been 3 global food price spikes, each linked in part to extreme weather that hit harvests hard. The IPCC gives a cautious estimate that food prices may rise due to climate change by 3-84% by 2050. Oxfam expects food prices to approximately <strong><a href="http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cr-growing-better-future-170611-en.pdf" rel="nofollow">double by 2030</a></strong>, with around half due to climate change, with<strong> <a href="http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/20120905-ib-extreme-weather-extreme-prices-en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">further spikes</a></strong> linked to extreme weather to come on top of that. That's a massive problem for anyone spending upwards of 50% of their income on food, but increasingly we'll all feel the pinch of higher prices for things like <strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2014/02/21/0f16ed44-9b28-11e3-975d-107dfef7b668_story.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">premium coffee</a></strong> or <strong><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-could-melt-chocolate-production/" rel="nofollow">chocolate</a></strong>.</p> <h3>3. Without action, climate change will reverse the fight against hunger – perhaps by several decades.</h3> <p><strong>Right now hunger levels worldwide are going down, though not nearly fast enough. But the IPCC cites studies which project a reversal of this progress. </strong></p> <p>By 2050 an extra 50 million people – that's the population of Spain – could be at risk of hunger because of climate change, and an extra 25 million under-fives malnourished – that's the same as all the under-fives in the US and Canada combined. Availability of calories per person is set to fall lower than the levels in 2000. If we are serious about getting to<a href="http://www.un.org/en/zerohunger/#&amp;panel1-1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> </a><strong><a href="http://www.un.org/en/zerohunger/#&amp;panel1-1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">zero hunger by 2025</a></strong> and staying there, we need a huge increase in climate action – both in adaptation and cutting emissions.</p> <h3>4. It is not too late to act, but we need to get serious about adaptation.</h3> <p><strong>We must over-come major adaptation deficits to cope with climate impacts on food in the near-term. </strong></p> <p>Eradicating hunger by 2025 will take a massive increase in efforts to adapt our food systems to climate change. But as we outlined in a briefing last week, the world is currently<strong><a href="http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/hot-and-hungry" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> woefully unprepared</a></strong>. The IPCC for the first time recognises a funding gap between the finance needed for adaptation – in the order of $100bn per year – and the amounts that are actually flowing (something<strong> <a href="http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/oxfam-media-advisory-climate-fiscal-cliff-doha-25nov2012.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Oxfam has long shouted about</a></strong>). The countries that have done most to cause climate change should help to pay this bill in poorer countries. But Oxfam estimates countries have received only around 2% of the money they need from the adaptation funds provided to them in the three years since the Copenhagen climate summit.</p> <h3>5. We must cut greenhouse gas emissions now.</h3> <p><strong>Unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions now too, we will surpass our capacity to adapt in the second half of this century. The IPCC is clear that adaptation alone will not be enough. </strong></p> <p>By 2050, on our current path, risks to food security in many countries will pass “beyond projected adaptive capacity”. This means there is little we can do to prevent permanent and irreversible damage to food production or the means by which people can buy food. The IPCC suggests this will result in “large risks to food security, globally and regionally” and may mean “current agricultural practices can no longer support large human civilizations”. </p> <p>Oxfam is starting to see the limits to adaptation in our own work even today. In <strong><a href="http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/blog/2014/03/adapting-to-a-hotter-hungrier-world-in-zimbabwe" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Zimbabwe</a></strong>, a previously successful irrigation scheme that has helped farmers to thrive in spite of more erratic rainfall hit the buffers when water levels dropped too low as a result of extreme drought. The IPCC describes the biological temperature limits of crops, beyond which they simply will not grow. The implication is clear: unless we rapidly reduce our emissions now, alongside a huge increase in adaptation efforts, runaway climate change will end our chances of winning the fight against hunger. Will ours be the generation to let that happen?</p> <p><a href="http://blogs.oxfam.org/sites/blogs.oxfam.org/files/oxfam-climate-headline-news.jpg" title=" This should be headline news"></a></p> <h3>You may also like</h3> <p><strong><a href="http://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/14-03-25-one-womans-story-fighting-climate-change-how-you-can-join-her">One woman’s inspiring story of fighting climate change</a></strong></p> <p><a href="http://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/14-03-26-ive-seen-how-climate-change-makes-people-hungry-we-must-act-now"><strong>I’ve seen how climate change makes people hungry</strong> </a>- Yeb Saño, Climate Change Commissioner, the Philippines</p> <p><strong>Download <a href="http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/mb-ipcc-oxfam-analysis-climate-change-food-security-310314-en.pdf" rel="nofollow">Oxfam's summary of the IPCC AR5 Report</a></strong></p> <p><strong>Take action now:<a href="http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/food-climate-justice/stop-climate-change-making-people-hungry" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> Help stop climate change making people hungry</a></strong></p></div><div class="field field-name-title"><h2>5 critical things we learned from the latest IPCC report on climate change</h2></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="translation_es first last"><a href="http://l.blogs.oxfam/es/blogs/14-04-15-5-conclusiones-cruciales-que-sacamos-del-ultimo-informe-sobre-el-cambio-climatico" title="5 conclusiones cruciales que sacamos del último informe sobre el cambio climático" class="translation-link" xml:lang="es">Español</a></li> </ul> Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:11:25 +0000 Tim Gore 10641 at http://l.blogs.oxfam http://l.blogs.oxfam/en/blogs/14-03-31-5-critical-things-we-learned-latest-ipcc-report-climate-change#comments Jour de la Terre 2013 : les grandes entreprises agroalimentaires en font-elles assez face au changement climatique ? http://l.blogs.oxfam/en/node/10285 <div class="field field-name-body"><p><em>A l’occasion du Jour de la Terre, ce lundi 22 avril, nous publions cette analyse sur la façon dont les grandes entreprises agroalimentaires devraient s’attaquer aux causes et conséquences du changement climatique.</em></p> <p>La semaine dernière lorsque j'ai lu dans les journaux des titres sur la <strong><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/vietnam-coffee-harvest-may-drop-30-on-drought-vicofa-says-1-.html" target="_blank" title="Vietnam Coffee Harvest May Drop 30% on Drought, Vicofa Says" rel="nofollow">possible chute des récoltes de café au Vietnam de 30 % à cause de la sécheresse</a></strong>, cela m'a inquiété et laissé un goût amer dans la bouche.</p> <p>La cause de cela : le changement climatique.</p> <p>Les événements climatiques de plus en plus graves et les autres impacts climatiques ruinent d'ores et déjà la production alimentaire au niveau mondial, et ce n'est que le début ! Les petits agriculteurs des pays en développement en sont les plus durement frappés et bien trop souvent, les cultures dont dépendent leur vie et leurs moyens de subsistance sont directement mises en danger.</p> <p>Ainsi, lorsqu'Oxfam a commencé à travailler sur sa nouvelle initiative <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/fr" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">La face cachée des marques</a></strong> et sur une <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/fr/fiche-d'%C3%A9valuation" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">fiche d'évaluation</a></strong> étudiant les politiques des dix plus grandes entreprises agroalimentaires sur une série de problématiques vitales pour les petits agriculteurs, le <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/fr/probl%C3%A9matiques/climat" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">changement climatique</a></strong> en faisait partie, à juste titre.</p> <p>Nous avons étudié les politiques des entreprises sur le changement climatique sous deux angles, en prêtant attention à la façon dont elles agissent sur les causes et les conséquences du réchauffement climatique.</p> <ul><li>Tout d'abord, nous avons cherché à savoir si les principales entreprises <strong>œuvrent réellement contre les risques liés au changement climatique</strong> dans leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement et si elles soutiennent la résilience des petits agriculteurs confrontés aux impacts tels que les pénuries d'eau et les tempêtes.</li> <li>Ensuite, nous avons voulu savoir si ces entreprises œuvraient à <strong>réduire leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre</strong>, notamment celles d'origine agricole. </li> </ul><p>La plupart de nos évaluations sont basées sur les rapports des entreprises établis selon le format de rapport du <strong><a href="https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx" target="_blank" title="CDP" rel="nofollow">CPD</a></strong> (anciennement Carbon Disclosure Project).</p> <p><strong><a href="http://blogs.oxfam.org/sites/blogs.oxfam.org/files/fr-issues-climate.jpeg" target="_blank"></a></strong></p> <p><strong>Ce que nous avons découvert nous a surpris.</strong> Ce n’est pas parce qu'une entreprise a obtenu une bonne note dans un domaine (le renforcement de la résilience au changement climatique ou la réduction des émissions), qu'elle est exemplaire dans les autres domaines. <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/fr/brands/unilever/ben-and-jerrys" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Unilever</a></strong>, qui a obtenu une note de 74 % dans la fiche d'évaluation au sujet des émissions, <strong>n'en est qu'à 30 % en ce qui concerne ses politiques autour des risques climatiques et du renforcement de la résilience des petits agriculteurs</strong>. L'entreprise doit se concentrer sur la résilience tout autant qu'elle prête attention aux émissions, bien qu'elle puisse encore faire des progrès en la matière. L'échec d'Unilever à traiter des questions de la résilience souligne le triste état global des choses en ce qui concerne l'engagement des dix géants en matière de risques climatiques et des impacts auxquels sont confrontés les petits agriculteurs. Le score moyen de l'entreprise à ce sujet s'élevait à 25 %.</p> <p>En matière de politiques sur la résilience face au changement climatique, une entreprise, <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/fr/brands/nestle/kit-kat" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Nestlé</a></strong>, s'est plutôt bien débrouillée. Elle a obtenu un score de 83 % sur les éléments de résilience de sa fiche d'évaluation. Ceci est dû en grande partie au fait que les rapports CPD et autres politiques de l'entreprise mettent l'accent sur l'importance de s'attaquer aux conséquences des changements climatiques tels que les pénuries d'eau ou les conditions météorologiques imprévisibles. Il est toutefois à regretter que l'entreprise n'ait pas obtenu de si bons résultats en ce qui concerne les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Dans ce domaine, globalement, Nestlé se situe dans la moyenne avec un score de 44 %. En revanche, en ce qui concerne ses politiques spécifiques en matière d'<strong>émissions de gaz à effet de serre d'origine agricole, son score chute bien en dessous de la moyenne, à 23 %</strong>.</p> <p>Mais ce qui nous a franchement le plus surpris et déçu, ce sont les <strong>politiques trop faibles de certaines entreprises en matière de changement climatique</strong> dans l'ensemble. <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/fr/brands/associated-british-foods/twinings" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Associated British Foods</a>, <a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/fr/brands/general-mills/haagen-dazs" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">General Mills</a>, et <a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/fr/brands/kelloggs/cornflakes" rel="nofollow">Kellogg’s</a> ont respectivement obtenu des notes de 3 %, 9 % et 12 % en matière de résilience</strong> face au changement climatique. Leurs scores en ce qui concerne leurs politiques sur les émissions de gaz à effet de serre d'origine agricole s'élevaient respectivement à 15 %, 0 % et 8 %. Ces entreprises sont clairement à la traîne lorsqu'il s'agit de s'attaquer aux causes et conséquences du changement climatique sur leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement.</p> <p>Elles doivent prendre conscience des effets de leurs agissements. Les populations les plus pauvres du monde pâtissent des politiques de ces entreprises. Cela doit changer !</p> <p><em>Cet article, traduit de l'anglais au français, a été publié initialement sur le blog d'<strong><a href="http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2013/03/21/climate-change-behind-the-brands-its-no-magic-trick/" target="_blank" title=" It’s no magic trick" rel="nofollow">Oxfam Amérique</a></strong> (Etats-Unis) </em></p></div><div class="field field-name-title"><h2>Jour de la Terre 2013 : les grandes entreprises agroalimentaires en font-elles assez face au changement climatique ?</h2></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="translation_en first last"><a href="http://l.blogs.oxfam/en/blogs/13-04-22-earth-day-climate-change-behind-brands-its-no-magic-trick" title="Earth Day: Climate Change Behind the Brands - it’s no magic trick" class="translation-link" xml:lang="en">English</a></li> </ul> Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:17:56 +0000 David Waskow 10285 at http://l.blogs.oxfam http://l.blogs.oxfam/en/node/10285#comments Earth Day: Climate Change Behind the Brands - it’s no magic trick http://l.blogs.oxfam/en/blogs/13-04-22-earth-day-climate-change-behind-brands-its-no-magic-trick <div class="field field-name-body"><p><em>To support <strong><a href="http://www.earthday.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Earth Day, 22 April </a></strong>we’re posting this analysis of how Big food companies must deal with the causes and the consequences of climate change.</em></p> <p>When I read headlines like this one last week, “<strong><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/vietnam-coffee-harvest-may-drop-30-on-drought-vicofa-says-1-.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Vietnam Coffee Harvest May Drop 30% on Drought</a></strong>,” I’m left with the feeling that the tablecloth is being pulled out from under the dishes on the table.</p> <p>And it’s climate change that is doing the pulling.</p> <p>Food production is already being pummeled globally by increasingly-severe climate events and other climate impacts, with more on the way. Small-scale farmers in developing countries are bearing the brunt of the damage – all too often, the crops they depend on for their lives and livelihoods are directly in harm’s way.</p> <p>So when Oxfam began work on our new <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Behind the Brands</a></strong> initiative and a <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/scorecard" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Scorecard </a>assessing the policies of the ten largest food and beverage companies on a range of issues that are vital for small-scale farmers</strong>, <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/issues/climate" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">climate change</a></strong> was right in the mix.</p> <p>We examined company policies on climate change in two ways, looking at how they’re dealing with both the causes and the consequences of global warming. </p> <ul><li>First, we wanted to know whether these major companies are <strong>working to address climate change risks in their supply chains</strong> and if they are working to support the resilience of small-scale farmers in the face of impacts such as water scarcity and storms.  </li> <li>Second, we wanted to know whether the companies are <strong>working to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases</strong> that cause climate change, especially from agricultural sources.   (Much of our scoring is based on company reporting based on the CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) reporting format.)</li> </ul><p><strong>What we discovered surprised us. </strong> Just because a company did well in one area – building climate resilience or reducing emissions –didn’t mean it did well in the other.  <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/brands/unilever/ben-and-jerrys" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Unilever</a></strong>, which scored 74% on the scorecard elements about emissions, <strong>scored only 30% in terms of its policies about climate risks</strong> and building the resilience of small-scale farmers.  The company needs to bring its focus on resilience up to its focus on emissions, which itself can still improve.  Unilever’s failure to address  resilience represents the overall dismal state of affairs when it comes to the ten companies’ engagement on climate risks and the impacts that small-scale farmers face. The average company score on this was 25%.</p> <p>One company, <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/brands/nestle/kit-kat" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Nestle</a></strong>, did quite well with its policies on climate resilience.  Nestle scored 83% on the resilience elements of the scorecard, largely because the company’s CDP reports and other policies highlight the importance of addressing climate impacts such as water shortages and volatile weather patterns.  Sadly, however, the company didn’t do so well when it comes to emissions.  Nestle has only average policies on emissions, with a score of 44%, and a <strong>below-average score at 23% for its policies specifically on agricultural sources of emissions</strong>.</p> <p>But, frankly, what surprised and disappointed us the most was that some companies had <strong>weak policies on climate change</strong> across the board.  <strong><a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/brands/associated-british-foods/mazola" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Associated British Foods</a>, <a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/brands/general-mills/betty-crocker" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">General Mills</a>, and <a href="http://www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/brands/kelloggs/cornflakes" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Kellogg’s</a> each scored 3%, 9%, and 12%, respectively, on climate resilience</strong>.  And the same three companies scored 15%, 0%, and 8%, respectively, when it comes to those companies’ policies on emissions from agricultural sources.  These companies are the real laggards on addressing the causes and consequences of climate change in their supply chains.</p> <p>They need to realize that the table cloth is being swiftly pulled out from under them and that our food and drinks—and the lives of the poorest around the world—will surely come crashing down as a result.<em></em></p> <p><em>Originally published by <a href="http://www.oxfamamerica.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><strong>Oxfam America</strong></a></em><a href="http://www.oxfamamerica.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><strong></strong></a></p></div><div class="field field-name-title"><h2>Earth Day: Climate Change Behind the Brands - it’s no magic trick</h2></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="translation_fr first last"><a href="http://l.blogs.oxfam/fr/blogs/13-04-22-jour-de-la-terre-2013-les-grandes-entreprises-agroalimentaires-en-font-elles-assez-fa" title="Jour de la Terre 2013 : les grandes entreprises agroalimentaires en font-elles assez face au changement climatique ?" class="translation-link" xml:lang="fr">Français</a></li> </ul> Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:18:08 +0000 David Waskow 10284 at http://l.blogs.oxfam http://l.blogs.oxfam/en/blogs/13-04-22-earth-day-climate-change-behind-brands-its-no-magic-trick#comments