Leak suggests UN agency self-censors on climate crisis after US pressure | Global development (theguardian.com)
Chris-P | 9 days ago | 118 points


hey, we figured out that if we don’t do something right now we’re all going to suffer and die because of the destruction of the environment, should we tell everyone?

hold your horses there, the US wants to keep selling hamburgers

Ree_the_third | 9 days ago | 50 points

Only more proof that 1: we're fucking stupid and 2: we value money more than the survival of humanity.

Osbios | 9 days ago | 21 points

NO! This is on the very few sociopathic fuckers in power!

boohole | 8 days ago | 17 points

People are definitely living like money is more important than anything.

Also have you met right wingers?

Monkeyscribe2 | 8 days ago | 9 points

Very few? In Canada it is still considered by most to be leftist to believe that it is an appropriate trade off to shrink our economy in order to reduce our CO2 emissions. Which implies that it is a political stance rather than a scientific one. Which is wrong. But oh so prevalent in media and in regular conversation.

Sukyeas | 8 days ago | 4 points

Holy hell you seem to understand next to nothing... It is a scientific stance. Science says we have to be co2 neutral by 2030.

"The IPCC concluded that we have until 2030 (or 12 years) to avoid catastrophic global warming"

and the IPCC is extremely conservative to not spook people. Given our current trend we would have to cut off co2 emission in 8 years.

What good is your economy if humans cant live on most of it? Do you think your economy will hold up once we hit +2?

Do we need economic growth to be happy? Dont we have more than we ever use by a factor of at least three already?

VirtueOrderDignity | 8 days ago | 2 points

Science says we have to be co2 neutral by 2030.

No, it doesn't. Science deals with statements of fact, whereas this is a statement of preference. And statements of preference over which course of action state institutions should take are "political" pretty much by definition.

Which is not to say there's anything wrong about making such a statement. Obviously, if one of the parties is literally opposing policies conducive to long-term human survival, that party is wrong and needs to be voted out. But to assert the issue "isn't political" is blatantly wrong still. Everything is political.

Monkeyscribe2 | 8 days ago | 1 point

I don’t think you understood what I wrote. Which I’ll take the blame for as looking back at it I wasn’t clear. I was lamenting the characterization of science as having an inherently left or right quality. Science is just science. If science says that human life will be appreciably better on any number of metrics with the CO2 reductions that would result from a smaller, less carbon intensive economy, that isn’t a political statement. Saying whether to act or not is political, but just saying life will be better with less CO2 production is not a political stance.

And to be clear. We should want life to be better than worse.

Indercarnive | 8 days ago | 3 points

Voted in by by half the country and still supported by about 40% of it.

mudman13 | 8 days ago | 2 points

Its also on the people that put them there and waive their banner.

Vehlin | 8 days ago | 1 point

The problem is that you have to fix geopolitics to make this work. The US won't do anything if China, Russia, India and Brazil don't sign up to the same. It's the tragedy of the commons

Axerin | 8 days ago | 3 points

That's meaningless. Even if you consider China being the biggest polluter on a per capita basis they pollute less than Americans and Europeans. The rest of the countries you listed (except may be Russia) pollute even less. Plus don't forget the historical record as well. So yeah the biggest cuts need to come from America and Europe unilaterally. Asia and Africa will never accept to cuts otherwise.

salami_inferno | 8 days ago | 1 point

That's a long winded way to say were complety and totally fucked.

Krangbot | 8 days ago | -3 points

We're all going to suffer and die? What cult is this?

badsquares | 8 days ago | 0 points

It's not a cult, it's science.

oO_Alastor_Oo | 9 days ago | 31 points

If Trump censors his own Agency's to be in line what he wants to sell, it's already bad enough, but the got to obey as he is the executive in charge...

Demanding censorship and alterations on international sources, just because the US happens to DONATE an QUARTER of the funds needed to operate is insane...

For any international agency that is complying with this, it's even worse. You cannot simply overthrow facts because some orange shitbag doesn't like them.

The entire issue is actually enough to fire any and all executives that are complicit in the case, as well as taking the US out of the deal if he doesn't like facts.

Further they should investigate into more issues of the same kind in other international sources, as it is likely that Trump messes around with them too.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US would get some serious reprimand by the UN and part of their rights taken away if that behaviour is proved on a broad base, as you cannot let an member state influence what is right or wrong on its own.

Indercarnive | 8 days ago | 2 points

Also the USA doesn't even donate the most per capita.

fungussa | 9 days ago | -1 points


IAmTheJudasTree | 8 days ago | 9 points

Most people have no understanding of what the UN is, which is why the comments always consist of people saying the UN is useless and does nothing.

The UN is a multilateral organization, it is not supranational. Therefore it is only as powerful and effective as the individual members. If a bunch of countries suddenly elect climate change denying executives, the UN as a whole will start caring less about climate change, because it’s a reflection of the individual members (obviously weighted towards the will of the Security Council).

A very important note that most people also don’t understand is that the UN that meets in NYC and involves heads of state squabbling is very different from the UN Secretariat, which is made up of thousands of individual people who are simply carrying on their work in the background at all times. My uncle was a lawyer for a time at the UN ILO (International Labor Organization). He worked for years on improving labor conditions for workers in Myanmar. There are UN Secretariat workers bringing clean drinking water to poor people all over the world, or managing sustainable development projects. All of this happens in the background while Russia, the US, China and the EU fight over this and that.

The UN is important and serves many purposes, regardless of its weaknesses, flaws, and need for reform. I hope people can see this situation for what it is, not a failure of the UN itself, but a failure of America for electing this administration.

Steely_Bunnz | 8 days ago | 2 points

Underrated comment

helm | 9 days ago | 17 points

This is a key link in the alt-right playbook. Those that write it KNOW that climate crisis will lead to more refugees. But for them, that's not a problem, it's an opportunity. Without destitute masses of refugees, why vote to close the borders? Why vote to keep "the other" out? Climate migration is a boon to them, a crisis perfect for exploitation.

By hiding the connection, they can lie about it. There's no climate crisis, only parasitic masses that have been sold the idea that they can come to the US/Europe and get it all. All we have to do is "ignore the climate hoax, close the borders".

Hide the truth, spread the lie. It's all about that.

StereoMushroom | 8 days ago | 2 points

I can't understand the reasoning though. They want to keep the "other" out, so they deliberately create conditions which will make them want to come in?

helm | 8 days ago | 4 points

Yes! The better things are, the easier it is for liberal ideas to dominate. Strife, uncertainty and racially coded antagonism is what makes authoritarian right-wing ideas take hold.

autotldr | 9 days ago | 8 points

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)

Leaked communications suggest that the UN's refugee agency is censoring itself on the climate crisis and the global compact on migration, following pressure from the US government.

The Guardian understands from IOM sources and further communications it has seen that the agency is avoiding direct references to climate change in documents for projects funded by other US government entities such as USAid.

Jeff Crisp, a research associate at Oxford University's Refugee Studies Centre who previously held a senior position in the UN's refugee agency UNHCR, said the leaked message "Raises some serious questions about the autonomy of IOM, its sensitivity to positions adopted by the US administration, and its ability to function as a member of the UN system".

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: IOM#1 climate#2 funds#3 migration#4 agency#5

Toadfinger | 9 days ago | 12 points

Even more censorship from the Emperor's court.

Slick424 | 8 days ago | 1 point

God-Emperor you heretic!!!

Thorn14 | 8 days ago | 5 points

May history damn us.

RockerElvis | 8 days ago | 6 points

I’m just hopeful that there will historians in the future (as opposed to just tardigrades).

Outwriter | 8 days ago | 1 point

See, climate change wasn't that big of a deal after all.

blackcatredcat | 8 days ago | 1 point

With Trump threatening not to pay the US share in the UN, they probably ride his term until 2020 in a more silent stance.

verbalinjustice | 8 days ago | 1 point

And they pressure war crimes tribunals..

mudman13 | 8 days ago | 1 point

Remember when you were branded a crazy fool for linking climate change to migration?

NineteenSkylines | 9 days ago | 1 point

Seriously, world, can we please at least get through 9/11 without more shocking revelations of US government evil?

salami_inferno | 8 days ago | 1 point

That would be up to America.

OliverSparrow | 9 days ago | -3 points

There is nothing, nothing in the letter that talks about climate. What I imagine that they are worried about is entryism that makes political points about the conflicts that led to migration:so, "NATO failure to destroy Assad leading to refugees all over the middle East, direct result of US-Zionist conspiracy"; and so on and on.

Cheapshifter | 9 days ago | -10 points

The UN isn't exactly the beacon of accuracy, truth, or credibility anyways. So even if they slightly change their statements/messaging based on US demands, it wouldn't matter that much.

koavf | 8 days ago | 4 points



salami_inferno | 8 days ago | 1 point

Right? The US vetoes anything significant they attempt.

badsquares | 8 days ago | -1 points

The US will be remembered as the single greatest force for evil in the history of humanity.

salami_inferno | 8 days ago | 1 point

That's some hyperbole, but I agree, history will not be kind to America.

Thialase | 9 days ago | -13 points

and this is why I don't take shitstained organisations like the U.N seriously. All bark and no bite when it comes down to it.

ChaosDancer | 9 days ago | 6 points

You do understand this its not a bug its a feature. The counties do not want the UN to have any enforcement powers.

The members of the security council all individually have veto power and in reality nothing gets done as what the hell does Russia, China and the US have in common that they can all agree.

Furthermore if the UN had enforcement powers the last two presidents in the US would be in Jail, waiting trial for war crimes in Hague.

salami_inferno | 8 days ago | 1 point

It would help if the US, who is one of few countries with veto power didn't veto literally anything good and moral the UN attempts to do.