Climate change caused by human activity could damage biological and social systems. Here we gathered climate, biological, and socioeconomic data to describe some of the events by which ocean biogeochemical changes triggered by ongoing greenhouse gas emissions could cascade through marine habitats and organisms, eventually influencing humans. Our results suggest that the entire world’s ocean surface will be simultaneously impacted by varying intensities of ocean warming, acidification, oxygen depletion, or shortfalls in productivity. Only a very small fraction of the oceans, mostly in polar regions, will face the opposing effects of increases in oxygen or productivity, and almost nowhere will there be cooling or pH increase. The biological responses to such biogeochemical changes could be considerable since marine habitats and hotspots for several marine taxa will be simultaneously exposed to biogeochemical changes known to be deleterious. The social ramifications are also likely to be massive and challenging as some 470 to 870 million people – who can least afford dramatic changes to their livelihoods – live in areas where ocean goods and services could be compromised by substantial changes in ocean biogeochemistry. These results underline the need for urgent mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions if degradation of marine ecosystems and associated human hardship are to be prevented.
Climate change and exposure to ‘natural’ disasters threaten to derail international efforts to eradicate poverty by 2030. As temperatures warm, many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens will face the growing risks linked to more intense or lengthy droughts, extreme rainfall and “ooding and severe heat waves – risks that threaten lives and livelihoods, as well as the hard-won gains made on poverty in recent decades. The impoverishing impact of both climate change and natural disasters is so grave that the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel (HLP) on Post-2015 Development Goals has suggested a target to be added to the first proposed post-2015 development goal on ending poverty: ‘to build resilience and reduce the number of deaths caused by disasters’.
We already know that disasters have a distinct geography, that poverty is concentrated in particular parts of the world and that climate change has an impact on extremes of heat, rainfall and droughts in many regions. But how will these patterns overlap in 2030, the probable end point for the next set of development goals, and how serious a threat do disasters and climate change pose to our prospects of eliminating extreme poverty in the next two decades?
This report, The geography of poverty, disasters and climate extremes in 2030, examines the relationship between disasters and poverty. It concludes that, without concerted action, there could be up to 325 million extremely poor people living in the 49 countries most exposed to the full range of natural hazards and climate extremes in 2030. It maps out where the poorest people are likely to live and develops a range of scenarios to identify potential patterns of vulnerability to extreme weather and earthquakes – who is going to be vulnerable and why. These scenarios are dynamic: they consider how the threats may change, which countries face the greatest risk and what role can be played by disaster risk management (DRM).
The report argues that if the international community is serious about eradicating poverty by 2030, it must address the issues covered in this report and put DRM at the heart of poverty eradication efforts. Without this, the target of ending poverty may not be within reach.
- Extreme weather linked to climate change is increasing and will likely cause more disasters. Such disasters, especially those linked to drought, can be the most important cause of impoverishment, cancelling progress on poverty reduction.
- Up to 325 million extremely poor people will be living in the 49 most hazard-prone countries in 2030, the majority in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
- The 11 countries most at risk of disaster-induced poverty are Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda.
- Disaster risk management should be a key component of poverty reduction efforts, focusing on
protecting livelihoods as well as saving lives. There is a need to identify and then act where the
poor and disaster risks are most concentrated.
- The post-2015 development goals must include targets on disasters and climate change, recognising
the threat they pose to the headline goal of eradicating extreme poverty by 2030.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 13, 2011
Public Information: 202-712-4810
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Unilever-Lifebuoy announced a new public-private partnership that leverages their collective resources to improve handwashing practices among birth attendants and family members as a key evidence-based strategy to reduce newborn infections. The partnership was developed in collaboration with USAID’s flagship Maternal and Child Health Integrated Program (MCHIP).
Up to two-thirds of the 3.6 million newborn infants who die within the first four weeks after birth can be prevented. About 85 percent of these deaths are due to a combination of infections, prematurity and complications during labor. Simple, low-cost health interventions could reduce this figure by up to 70 percent. One such intervention is handwashing with soap.
Approximately one-third of the 3.6 million neonatal deaths that occur each year can be attributed to infections that develop into life-threatening conditions. USAID-supported research is strengthening the evidence base on infection management in young infants, especially in community-based settings.
A recent community study in Nepal concluded that handwashing with soap can reduce newborn deaths by up to 44%. For countries where newborn mortality is high, adopting handwashing with soap as a standard practice before delivery and while handling newborns is not only important, but it saves lives.
“USAID is introducing and scaling up the delivery of very simple, low-cost approaches to prevent death and treat severe illness to reach women and children in very poor communities who do not have access to quality health care,” said Richard Greene, Director Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition, USAID. “And good hygiene is essential to good health.”
Keeping hands clean is one of the most important steps one can take to avoid getting sick and spreading germs to others. Studies show that washing hands with soap is one of the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diseases: it can cut deaths from diarrhea by almost half and from acute respiratory infections by a quarter.
Global Development Alliances (GDA) like this link U.S. foreign assistance with the resources, expertise, innovation, and creativity of private sector partners and NGOs. Such alliances are vital to the achievement of transformational development goals, and alliances that have the greatest impact are the ones connected to the core business mission of the private company.
“At Lifebuoy, we understand the impact that handwashing with soap can make and have made a bold commitment to change the handwashing behavior of one billion people by 2015,” said Myriam Sidibe, Social Mission Director, Lifebuoy. “Persuading people to change their behaviour for long term health benefits is difficult, and requires a sound understanding of people’s habits, lifestyles and environment. We are proud to be working as a partner of this Global Development Alliance for newborn survival, which will implement effective behavior change interventions based on our collective understanding preventing infections and saving lives.”
Under the President’s Global Health Initiative, USAID is targeting investments where we can most effectively achieve dramatic, meaningful results for the American people and the developing world. Expanding these programs will mean providing easier access at a single location for a broader set of medical and health interventions. It means focusing more clearly and getting the full package of basic health services out to those people who are most vulnerable because they lack access to any protective care at all.
Key to success is motivating birth attendants, new mothers, health providers, and caretakers to adopt handwashing with soap as an ingrained habit to significantly reduce newborn deaths due to infection.
“We look forward to being an implementing partner in this Public-Private alliance,” said Koki Agarwal, Director, Maternal and Child Health Integrated Program (MCHIP). “We are committed to saving the lives of newborns and this is one simple, low-cost intervention that can do just that.”
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID): USAID is an independent federal government agency of the United States of America. U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world. USAID has a long history of promoting handwashing to reduce diarrhea among children under five and has catalyzed global public-private partnerships to promote handwashing. USAID has now expanded the communications message to promote handwashing for newborn survival through this partnership with Unilever. Maternal and Child Health Integrated Program (MCHIP): MCHIP is the USAID global flagship program on maternal, newborn and child health. MCHIP is implemented by Jhpiego, Save the Children., John Snow, Inc (JSI); Macro International, Inc., Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH);Johns Hopkins University Institute for International Programs, Population Services International (PSI) and Broad Branch Associates. Unilever, Lifebuoy: Unilever works with its partners to achieve long-term solutions to the many key global challenges facing consumers around the world. Lifebuoy one of Unilever’s oldest brands, creates products that provide accessible hygiene, and as the world’s leading health soap, we know there is more that we can do. For this reason, the Lifebuoy brand aims to make a difference in people’s day-to-day lives by helping to promote health and hygiene, and in particular encourage people to wash their hands with soap. By 2015, Lifebuoy aims to change the behavior of a billion people by promoting the “Lifebuoy Way” of handwashing with soap at 5 key occasions and hence making a difference and helping save lives.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID): USAID is an independent federal government agency of the United States of America. U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world. USAID has a long history of promoting handwashing to reduce diarrhea among children under five and has catalyzed global public-private partnerships to promote handwashing. USAID has now expanded the communications message to promote handwashing for newborn survival through this partnership with Unilever.
Maternal and Child Health Integrated Program (MCHIP): MCHIP is the USAID global flagship program on maternal, newborn and child health. MCHIP is implemented by Jhpiego, Save the Children., John Snow, Inc (JSI); Macro International, Inc., Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH);Johns Hopkins University Institute for International Programs, Population Services International (PSI) and Broad Branch Associates.
Unilever, Lifebuoy: Unilever works with its partners to achieve long-term solutions to the many key global challenges facing consumers around the world. Lifebuoy one of Unilever’s oldest brands, creates products that provide accessible hygiene, and as the world’s leading health soap, we know there is more that we can do. For this reason, the Lifebuoy brand aims to make a difference in people’s day-to-day lives by helping to promote health and hygiene, and in particular encourage people to wash their hands with soap. By 2015, Lifebuoy aims to change the behavior of a billion people by promoting the “Lifebuoy Way” of handwashing with soap at 5 key occasions and hence making a difference and helping save lives.
Eva Perdue, her legs wrapped in a black- and-white-checked blanket, a bright red kerchief tied in her hair, sits on a couch in her small house near downtown Atlanta that Habitat for Humanity built. She once worked as a housekeeper at a Georgia state mental facility but quit nine years ago to care for a sick husband. Now 64 and widowed, Perdue herself is sick. “Curses of the liver and high blood pressure,” she says. She has little money to buy any food, let alone healthy food: $98 is all she has after bills are paid from her $848 monthly Social Security check plus $68 worth of food stamps.
The morning I visited Perdue, she had eaten for breakfast the breading from two corn dogs, washed down with a cup of tea. The corn dogs she gave to her 18-year-old grandson, who lives with her. Too much salt, she said. “I can eat cereal. But I have no milk.” A gallon would cost $3 or $4, which Perdue did not have. Lunch might be a small salad with some rust-tinged cabbage and carrots from a convenience store up the street. She wasn’t sure about supper or what she’d eat the next day—if she ate at all.
Perdue tried to get help from Meals on Wheels Atlanta. In mid-April of 2012, she was twenty-seventh on a waiting list of 120. In November, she was still on the list, which had grown to 198. Her daughter finally found another program.
The number of women over the age of 65 living in extreme poverty jumped by 18 percent last year after having held steady for most of the previous decade the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) reported Thursday.
There were 135,000 more elderly women living on less than $5,500 per year in 2012 than in 2011, pushing the total size of that group to 733,000. Put another way, there are more elderly women living on $15 per day than there are residents of Detroit, Michigan.
As global demand for sugar increases, so does the rush for land to grow it. Around the world poor farmers are being kicked off their land to grow sugar, leaving them hungry and homeless.
What do the world's biggest food and beverage companies have to do with land grabs? More than you might think. Go Behind the Brands on 2 October to find out more: http://www.behindthebrands.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 19, 2013
CONTACT: Children’s Defense Fund
Raymonde Charles, Press Secretary, 202-662-3508 office, email@example.com
The Poorest Americans are Children and the Poorest Children are Black, Hispanic and Under Six: In 43 States Child Poverty Rates Remain Significantly Higher Than They Were Before the Recession
WASHINGTON – September 19 – The Children’s Defense Fund’s analysis of new state data released by the U.S. Census Bureau reveals that child poverty rates remain at record highs and Black, Hispanic and children under six suffer the most. Only two states (Texas and Illinois) experienced significant decreases from 2011. Child poverty rates actually increased in three states (New Hampshire, Mississippi and California) and remained at 2011 levels for the remaining 45 states.
“Children’s ability to survive, thrive and develop must not depend on the lottery of geography of birth. A child is a child and should be protected by a national floor of decency. We can and must end child poverty. It’s about values. It’s about priorities. It’s about who we are as Americans. The greatest threat to America’s national security comes from no foreign enemy but from our failure to invest in healthy and educated children,” said Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund.
“All Americans including those in Congress have to recognize that Black and Hispanic children already are a majority of our babies and are the face of our future. We need them to be productive. Every year we keep over 16 million children in poverty we are losing hundreds of billions of dollars. Children did not cause the recession and they should not have to suffer from the recklessness of others. If we want to build a strong workforce and military and to stand for the basic tenets of justice for the most voiceless in our midst, we must end child poverty. How is it possible when millions of children are poor, Congress could for one minute consider cutting their food assistance,” asked Edelman referring to a proposal in the House of Representatives to cut SNAP by about $40 billion over the next ten years.
The states with child poverty rates 25 percent or higher are:
- Mississippi: 34.7
- New Mexico: 29.3
- Arkansas: 28.5
- Louisiana: 28.1
- Alabama: 27.5
- Georgia: 27.2
- Arizona: 27.0
- South Carolina: 26.9
- Kentucky: 26.5
- North Carolina: 26.0
- Texas: 25.8
- Tennessee: 25.8
- Florida: 25.4
Poverty is defined as an annual income below $23,492 for the average family of four—$1,958 a month, $452 a week, or $64 a day. Extreme poverty is defined as an annual income of less than half of the poverty level or $11,746 a year, $979 a month, $226 a week, or $32 a day for the average family of four.
The Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) is a non-profit child advocacy organization that has worked relentlessly for 35 years to ensure a level playing field for all children. We champion policies and programs that lift children out of poverty; protect them from abuse and neglect; and ensure their access to health care, quality education, and a moral and spiritual foundation.
Three things to know about new data and it’s effect on budget and policy choices:
- Income inequality has widened since the end of the Great Recession.
- Our safety net is working overtime to compensate for rising income inequality and the proliferation of low-wage work.
- High poverty rates among young children of color have long-term implications for our economic competitiveness.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 17, 2013
CONTACT: Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
The national poverty figures were released today by the Census Bureau.
JENNIFER JONES AUSTIN, Bich Ha Pham, bhpham at fpwa.org
Executive director of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Austin said today:
“Today’s release of the national poverty figures shows that 21.8 percent of our nation’s children and 15 percent of the population overall are impoverished. Despite the high level of need, the federal government continues to cut vital services and assistance designed to help the most vulnerable among us. Most recently, government funding reductions have resulted in over 57,000 low-income children losing Head Start services.
“Added to this are funding cuts for meals for homebound seniors, vocational training programs for those who’ve lost their jobs, food for low income families, and the list goes on. At a time when our nation needs to protect people from continued and increasing hardship, and support economic growth, the Federal government has imposed sequestration cuts and proposes further budget cuts that take us backwards. The House of Representatives’ appropriations plans will slash more than $45 billion from domestic and non-defense international programs below current levels. Funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, for example, are cut 18.6 percent below this year’s levels,”
STEPHEN PIMPARE, stephenpimpare at yahoo.com, @stephenpimpare
Pimpare is author of A People’s History of Poverty in America and adjunct associate professor of social work at Columbia University and the City University of New York.
He said today:
“The Census Bureau’s annual poverty report gives us new data to describe what are essentially the same grim conditions for poor and low-income Americans.The continuing crises of poverty, homelessness, inequality and insecurity ensnaring an ever-larger share of the population is a crisis of democracy — the American economy and political system have become utterly unresponsive to our most basic needs. And this year’s report comes at a time when many are actively seeking to make it worse, with the right ramping up renewed assaults on those very social programs — Food Stamps (SNAP), disability insurance (SSDI), and unemployment insurance (UI) — that, however imperfectly, radically reduced poverty from what it would otherwise be.
“Attacks on SNAP and SSDI disguises another kind of economic agenda — labor markets matter to the benefactors of anti-relief ideologues, and cutting off access to aid or decreasing its value help to lower wages. In fact, those nations and even those U.S. states with more generous social supports tend also to have higher wages: High unemployment and stingy benefits are a boon to employers, since a desperate worker is a cheap and compliant worker.
“How to reduce poverty is not much of a mystery, and is actually fairly easy. Lots of other rich democracies have demonstrated that. Poverty is not a policy problem, it’s a political problem. It’s a problem of power. We should use the census report to talk about what to do about that.”
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
In lieu of that, for the eleventh time in twelve years, poverty has worsened or stayed the same. It remains stuck at 15 percent, with 46 million people living on less than about $18,300 for a family of three. That includes nearly 22 percent of all children, 27 percent of African-Americans, 25 percent of Hispanics and more than 28 percent of people with disabilities (the next group conservatives will likely target after they are through with those who currently need food stamp assistance).
Significantly, 44 percent of those in poverty live below half the poverty line—in “deep poverty”—on less than about $9,150 for a family of three. That adds up to 20.4 million people, and includes 15 million women and children—nearly 10 percent of all children in the United States. Deep poverty and its accompanying toxic stress are particularly harmful to children. We also have evidence that just a modest boost in income—$3000 in earnings or government benefits for a family living on less than $25,000—makes a significant difference in the lives of young children when they reach adulthood, both in the hours they will work and the income they will earn.