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

something has been deleted

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.

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)

Originally Posted by: Centurion

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!

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.

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

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

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