Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#1 Posted : 19 February 2021 12:47:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

As the UN already has a specialised agency established in 1972 UNEP (Environmental Program) why should WHO undertake ther work? 

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Centurion on 19/02/2021(UTC), Centurion on 19/02/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 19 February 2021 12:47:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

As the UN already has a specialised agency established in 1972 UNEP (Environmental Program) why should WHO undertake ther work? 

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Centurion on 19/02/2021(UTC), Centurion on 19/02/2021(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 19 February 2021 14:28:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

something has been deleted

Centurion  
#4 Posted : 19 February 2021 14:45:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Centurion

Roundtuit

I wasn’t aware of UNEP.

Are they at the forefront of proposing dramatic actions?

PS.

For those viewing this I must have pressed the wrong button because my topic has disappeared.

It contained the following:

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) responsible for international public health.

As such, shouldn’t it now become the leading light with regards to saving the planet from pollution?

For years all that we get from Governments and Global Companies are grandiose theoretical proposals which mask their own agendas.

As time goes by it just gets worse.

Dramatic actions are needed now and not years down the road.

I would like the WHO to name and shame the major polluters and for the UN to impose economic restrictions upon them to quickly change their ways.

Your views?

A Kurdziel  
#5 Posted : 19 February 2021 15:13:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

UN agencies are not responsible for anything as the UNO is not,  contrary to what the nutters online think, a World Government. Its job is to coordinate policy  and set minimum standards. It relies on the member states to do the right thing. The worst that the UN or its agencies can do is to point fingers and say that such and such a government is not pulling it weight.  

WHO deals with health issues but by that it means getting  most of the 200 or sovereign governments around the world to set up proper health care systems for their people. It is interested in things like hospitals and access to medical treatment and coordinating responses to pandemics.  Similarly  the International Labour Organisation looks at how workers are treated around the world. Its standards include such concepts as workers should be paid in actual money which they can freely spend and that they are entitled to a safe workplace.

The United Nations Environment Programme is not strictly speaking an agency but works with other agencies and governments to “ to provide leadership, deliver science and develop solutions on a wide range of issues, including climate change”.

The UN can only point us in the right direction, it is down to the member countries governments to deliver the solutions.

Centurion  
#6 Posted : 19 February 2021 15:57:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Centurion

A Kurdziel

Why would it be:

“the worst that the UN or its agencies can do is to point fingers and say that such and such a government is not pulling it weight”.

Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 19 February 2021 16:28:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

For the same reason the UN Globally Harmonised System (GHS) is neither:

Global (many countries are still to adopt the system in to their national legislation)

or

Harmonised (when enacting legislation they pick which bits of which version to apply)

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 19 February 2021 16:28:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

For the same reason the UN Globally Harmonised System (GHS) is neither:

Global (many countries are still to adopt the system in to their national legislation)

or

Harmonised (when enacting legislation they pick which bits of which version to apply)

AcornsConsult  
#9 Posted : 21 February 2021 09:58:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: Centurion Go to Quoted Post

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) responsible for international public health. As such, shouldn’t it now become the leading light with regards to saving the planet from pollution? For years all that we get from Governments and Global Companies are grandiose theoretical proposals which mask their own agendas.

Dramatic actions are needed now and not years down the road.

Here goes: Whilst WHOmay be responsible for health, I've not really heard much that they have done in relation to environment.  Would it not be akin to going the the NHS asking for advise on stemming river pollution? Quite agree that all countries have their own agendas.

To make the changes that I  imagine will be required are probably still less that what is needed in reality.

 The impact on life and businesses to make these environmental changes will be massive and something way beyond what Covid is doing to businesses and society, and look at the upset that is causing.   There will be whole industries that will be wiped out or at least greatly reduced.  

If we follow the Covid trend, then those involved in such works will want and expect compensation and that is where the rub comes - the cost.  No one want to pay, not the government, not businesses and certainly not the people - assuming they could afford to pay more and be paid less!

Governments will only want tomake changes if it gets votes or keep them in power Companies, by their very nature, will only want to make changes if there are benefits - financial benefits. People will only want it if it doesn't really affect them or cost them anything And yet someone, somehow has to take a lead to get things moving, and quickly!

thanks 1 user thanked AcornsConsult for this useful post.
Centurion on 21/02/2021(UTC)
John Murray  
#10 Posted : 21 February 2021 16:54:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Pollution/emissions are only aspects of the main global problem: Over-population.

Solve/sort that problem, and the others are solved/sorted at the same time.

AcornsConsult  
#11 Posted : 22 February 2021 08:36:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: John Murray Go to Quoted Post
Pollution/emissions are only aspects of the main global problem: Over-population.

Solve/sort that problem, and the others are solved/sorted at the same time.

🙈 great examples of my thoughts above that they may well be solutions but also would shatter political votes, company profits and people's lifestyles.
CptBeaky  
#12 Posted : 22 February 2021 09:09:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: John Murray Go to Quoted Post

Pollution/emissions are only aspects of the main global problem: Over-population.

Solve/sort that problem, and the others are solved/sorted at the same time.

The world is not over populated, we just consume too much. The entire world's population could live in Texas with the same density as London. If we reduced our consumption, particularly of animal goods it would be a major step forward to achieving net 0 emissions. 18% of all greenhouse gasses come from animal agriculture, around a third of all fresh water is given to farm animals. The biggest single thing a person can do to reduce their carbon footprint is go vegan.

But no-one wants to hear that, so no world organistion will push that position (including WHO). If you can't get funding through donations or governments, you can't function as a world organistion.

A Kurdziel  
#13 Posted : 22 February 2021 09:31:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

For centurion:

1) We have an issue with people dropping litter on my street  and dogs leaving their mess. NATO has the time resources and capabilities to deal with that issue. They don’t because its not their job.

 

2) All that the UN can do is point a finger at states that fail to deliver their international obligations.     Essentially there is no mechanism to enforce UN rules. UN members practice slavery, carry out acts of genocide,  illegally occupy territory, support the trade in illegal drugs, carry out cyber attacks and work with terrorists.  The UN is aware of this, but other than wagging a finger in most cases they are unable to take any effective action.  It’s  just the way the world is currently and remember most people don’t have an appetite for supranational agencies running the show in their countries. That’s what Brexit was about, wasn’t it.

Alan Haynes  
#14 Posted : 22 February 2021 09:33:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alan Haynes

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: John Murray Go to Quoted Post
......... The biggest single thing a person can do to reduce their carbon footprint is go vegan.But no-one wants to hear that, so no world organistion will push that position (including WHO). Ifyou can't get funding through donations or governments, you can't function as a world organistion.
Surely, the best thing is to stop breathing?- then they dont produce CO2 🙃
thanks 1 user thanked Alan Haynes for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 22/02/2021(UTC)
Centurion  
#15 Posted : 23 February 2021 17:57:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Centurion

A news quotation for your interest.

Sir David Attenborough at today’s UN Security Council:

Sir David Attenborough gave a stirring speech setting out the huge peril currently facing all life on earth unless urgent and ambitious action is taken to turn the tide on climate breakdown.

 "May I plead that today there are threats to security of a new and unprecedented kind," the veteran broadcaster and naturalist told world diplomats and leaders at the meeting. "These threats do not divide us. They are threats which should unite us, no matter from which part of the planet we come. For they face us all. They are rising global temperatures."

Attenborough then listed a host of spiralling environmental impacts he said threatened to alter the stability of the world, from the "despoiling" of the ocean on which billions rely on for food, changing weather patterns that threaten cities and societies, and the "extermination" of animals and creatures.

 "Please make no mistake: climate change is the biggest threat to security that modern humans have ever faced," he said. "I don't envy you - the responsibility is on all of you and your governments."

Attenborough said it was "too late to avoid climate change" but that "if we act fast enough, we can reach a new stable state", as he described COP26 later this year as "what may be our last opportunity to make this step change".

"Climate change is a threat to global security that can only be dealt with by unparalleled level of global cooperation," he said. "It will compel us to question our economic models, and where we place value. Invent entirely new industries, recognise the moral responsibility that wealthy nations have to the rest of the world and put a value on nature that goes beyond money."

"And through global cooperation we may achieve far more than tackling climate change," Attenborough concluded. "We may finally create a stable, healthy world where resources are equally shared, and where we thrive in balance with the rest of the natural world. We may, for the first time in the entire history of humanity, come to know what it feels like to be secure."

Edited by user 23 February 2021 19:03:21(UTC)  | Reason: Amendment

thanks 1 user thanked Centurion for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 24/02/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 23 February 2021 19:15:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Unfortunately this is one of the reasons I no longer bother with most BBC programming

Roundtuit  
#17 Posted : 23 February 2021 19:15:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Unfortunately this is one of the reasons I no longer bother with most BBC programming

Centurion  
#18 Posted : 24 February 2021 08:29:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Centurion

Roundtuit

Please enlighten me - what's the connection with the BBC?

Gerry Knowles  
#19 Posted : 02 March 2021 14:13:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Gerry Knowles

I do agree that the W.H.O. is not the right body to be trying to reduce pollution and clean up the planet.  I feel that Sir David Attenbrough and all the other groups that are jumping up and down about pollution, loss of habitat, use of resources, carbonisation etc are missing the point. They are unfortunately so focused on their own agendas that they are only dealing with the symptoms of the main cause of the ills of the earth.  The root cause of all of the earths ills is the human race and in particular the levels of population the planet was not designed for an overall population of nearly 7 billion. On top of that is the quest for everyone on earth need to improve their economic life.  To me that answer is to leave nature alone and to look at reducing the overall population to a level that can be sustained.  In short contraception may be the answer!!

Edited by user 02 March 2021 14:16:42(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling error

Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.