speech writing on environment crisis

Never Miss A Post: Subscribe

Four Powerful Climate Change Speeches to Inspire You

To support the running costs of Moral Fibres, this post may contain affiliate links. This means Moral Fibres may earn a small commission, at no extra cost to readers, on items purchased through these links.

Looking to be inspired to take action on climate change? Watch these four powerful climate change speeches, and get ready to change the world.

Climate change is the most pressing concern facing us and our planet. As such, we need powerful action, and fast, from both global leaders and global corporations, right down to individuals.

I’ve got over 70 climate change and sustainability quotes to motivate people and inspire climate action. But if it is more than quotes you need then watch these four impassioned climate change speeches. These speeches are particularly good if you are looking for even more inspiration to inspire others to take climate action.

The Sustainability Speeches To Motivate You

Here are the speeches to know – I’ve included a video of each speech plus a transcript to make it easy to get all the information you need. Use the quick links to jump to a specific speech or keep scrolling to see all the speeches.

Greta Thunberg’s Climate Change Speech at the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit

Leonardo dicaprio’s climate change speech at the 2014 un climate summit, yeb sano’s climate change speech at the united nations climate summit in warsaw, greta thunberg’s speech at houses of parliament.

In September 2019 climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed the U.N.’s Climate Action Summit in New York City with this inspiring climate change speech:

Here’s the full transcript of Greta Thunberg’s climate change speech. It begins with Greta’s response to a question about the message she has for world leaders.

My message is that we’ll be watching you.

This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C, and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

Fifty per cent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO 2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5°C global temperature rise – the best odds given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the world had 420 gigatons of CO 2 left to emit back on January 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.

How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just ‘business as usual’ and some technical solutions? With today’s emissions levels, that remaining CO 2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 and a half years.

There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

Leonardo DiCaprio gave an impassioned climate change speech at the 2014 UN Climate Summit. Watch it now:

Here’s a transcript of Leonardo DiCaprio’s climate change speech in case you’re looking to quote any part of it.

Thank you, Mr Secretary General, your excellencies, ladies and gentleman, and distinguished guests. I’m honoured to be here today, I stand before you not as an expert but as a concerned citizen. One of the 400,000 people who marched in the streets of New York on Sunday, and the billions of others around the world who want to solve our climate crisis.

As an actor, I pretend for a living. I play fictitious characters often solving fictitious problems.

I believe humankind has looked at climate change in that same way. As if it were fiction, happening to someone else’s planet, as if pretending that climate change wasn’t real would somehow make it go away.

But I think we know better than that. Every week, we’re seeing new and undeniable climate events, evidence that accelerated climate change is here now .  We know that droughts are intensifying.  Our oceans are warming and acidifying, with methane plumes rising up from beneath the ocean floor. We are seeing extreme weather events, increased temperatures, and the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting at unprecedented rates, decades ahead of scientific projections.

None of this is rhetoric, and none of it is hysteria. It is fact. The scientific community knows it. Industry and governments know it. Even the United States military knows it. The chief of the US Navy’s Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, recently said that climate change is our single greatest security threat.

My friends, this body – perhaps more than any other gathering in human history – now faces that difficult task. You can make history or be vilified by it.

To be clear, this is not about just telling people to change their light bulbs or to buy a hybrid car. This disaster has grown BEYOND the choices that individuals make. This is now about our industries, and governments around the world taking decisive, large-scale action.

I am not a scientist, but I don’t need to be. Because the world’s scientific community has spoken, and they have given us our prognosis. If we do not act together, we will surely perish.

Now is our moment for action.

We need to put a price tag on carbon emissions and eliminate government subsidies for coal, gas, and oil companies. We need to end the free ride that industrial polluters have been given in the name of a free-market economy. They don’t deserve our tax dollars, they deserve our scrutiny. For the economy itself will die if our ecosystems collapse.

The good news is that renewable energy is not only achievable but good economic policy. New research shows that by 2050 clean, renewable energy could supply 100% of the world’s energy needs using existing technologies, and it would create millions of jobs.

This is not a partisan debate; it is a human one. Clean air and water, and a livable climate are inalienable human rights. And solving this crisis is not a question of politics. It is our moral obligation – if, admittedly, a daunting one.

We only get one planet. Humankind must become accountable on a massive scale for the wanton destruction of our collective home. Protecting our future on this planet depends on the conscious evolution of our species.

This is the most urgent of times, and the most urgent of messages.

Honoured delegates, leaders of the world, I pretend for a living. But you do not. The people made their voices heard on Sunday around the world and the momentum will not stop. And now it’s YOUR turn, the time to answer the greatest challenge of our existence on this planet is now.

I beg you to face it with courage. And honesty. Thank you.

The Philippines’ lead negotiator  Yeb Sano  addressed the opening session of the UN climate summit in Warsaw in November 2013. In this emotional and powerful climate change speech he called for urgent action to prevent a repeat of the devastating storm that hit parts of the Philippines:

Transcript of Yeb’s Climate Change Speech

Here’s a transcript of Yeb’s climate change speech:

Mr President, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the resilient people of the Republic of the Philippines.

At the onset, allow me to fully associate my delegation with the statement made by the distinguished Ambassador of the Republic of Fiji, on behalf of G77 and China as well as the statement made by Nicaragua on behalf of the Like-Minded Developing Countries.

First and foremost, the people of the Philippines, and our delegation here for the United Nations Climate Change Convention’s 19 th  Conference of the Parties here in Warsaw, from the bottom of our hearts, thank you for your expression of sympathy to my country in the face of this national difficulty.

In the midst of this tragedy, the delegation of the Philippines is comforted by the warm hospitality of Poland, with your people offering us warm smiles everywhere we go. Hotel staff and people on the streets, volunteers and personnel within the National Stadium have warmly offered us kind words of sympathy. So, thank you Poland.

The arrangements you have made for this COP is also most excellent and we highly appreciate the tremendous effort you have put into the preparations for this important gathering.

We also thank all of you, friends and colleagues in this hall and from all corners of the world as you stand beside us in this difficult time.

I thank all countries and governments who have extended your solidarity and for offering assistance to the Philippines.

I thank the youth present here and the billions of young people around the world who stand steadfastly behind my delegation and who are watching us shape their future.

I thank civil society, both who are working on the ground as we race against time in the hardest-hit areas, and those who are here in Warsaw prodding us to have a sense of urgency and ambition.

We are deeply moved by this manifestation of human solidarity. This outpouring of support proves to us that as a human race, we can unite; that as a species, we care.

It was barely 11 months ago in Doha when my delegation appealed to the world… to open our eyes to the stark reality that we face… as then we confronted a catastrophic storm that resulted in the costliest disaster in Philippine history.

Less than a year hence, we cannot imagine that a disaster much bigger would come. With an apparent cruel twist of fate, my country is being tested by this hellstorm called Super Typhoon Haiyan, which has been described by experts as the strongest typhoon that has ever made landfall in the course of recorded human history.

It was so strong that if there was a Category 6, it would have fallen squarely in that box. Up to this hour, we remain uncertain as to the full extent of the devastation, as information trickles in an agonisingly slow manner because electricity lines and communication lines have been cut off and may take a while before these are restored.

The initial assessment shows that Haiyan left a wake of massive devastation that is unprecedented, unthinkable, and horrific, affecting 2/3 of the Philippines, with about half a million people now rendered homeless, and with scenes reminiscent of the aftermath of a tsunami, with a vast wasteland of mud and debris and dead bodies.

According to satellite estimates, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also estimated that Haiyan achieved a minimum pressure between around 860 mbar (hPa; 25.34 inHg) and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center estimated Haiyan to have attained one-minute sustained winds of 315 km/h (195 mph) and gusts up to 378 km/h (235 mph) making it the strongest typhoon in modern recorded history.

Despite the massive efforts that my country had exerted in preparing for the onslaught of this monster of a storm, it was just a force too powerful, and even as a nation familiar with storms, Super Typhoon Haiyan was nothing we have ever experienced before, or perhaps nothing that any country has every experienced before.

The picture in the aftermath is ever so slowly coming into clearer focus. The devastation is colossal. And as if this is not enough, another storm is brewing again in the warm waters of the western Pacific. I shudder at the thought of another typhoon hitting the same places where people have not yet even managed to begin standing up.

To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of your armchair.

I dare you to go to the islands of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian Ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confront similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannahs of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death as food and water becomes scarce.

Not to forget the massive hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard of North America. And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now.

The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as the frequency of extreme weather events.

Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms up, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.

This will have profound implications on many of our communities, especially who struggle against the twin challenges of the development crisis and the climate change crisis. Typhoons such as Yolanda (Haiyan) and its impacts represent a sobering reminder to the international community that we cannot afford to procrastinate on climate action. Warsaw must deliver on enhancing ambition and should muster the political will to address climate change.

In Doha, we asked, “If not us then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where?” (borrowed from Philippine student leader Ditto Sarmiento during Martial Law). It may have fell on deaf ears. But here in Warsaw, we may very well ask these same forthright questions. “If not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not here in Warsaw, where?”

What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness.

We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw.

It is the 19 th  COP, but we might as well stop counting because my country refuses to accept that a COP30 or a COP40 will be needed to solve climate change.

And because it seems that despite the significant gains we have had since the UNFCCC was born, 20 years hence we continue to fail in fulfilling the ultimate objective of the Convention. 

Now, we find ourselves in a situation where we have to ask ourselves – can we ever attain the objective set out in Article 2 – which is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system? By failing to meet the objective of the Convention, we may have ratified the doom of vulnerable countries.

And if we have failed to meet the objective of the Convention, we have to confront the issue of loss and damage.

Loss and damage from climate change is a reality today across the world. Developed country emissions reduction targets are dangerously low and must be raised immediately. But even if they were in line with the demand of reducing 40-50% below 1990 levels, we would still have locked-in climate change and would still need to address the issue of loss and damage.

We find ourselves at a critical juncture and the situation is such that even the most ambitious emissions reductions by developed countries, who should have been taking the lead in combatting climate change in the past two decades, will not be enough to avert the crisis.

It is now too late, too late to talk about the world being able to rely on Annex I countries to solve the climate crisis. We have entered a new era that demands global solidarity in order to fight climate change and ensure that the pursuit of sustainable human development remains at the fore of the global community’s efforts. This is why means of implementation for developing countries is ever more crucial.

It was the Secretary-general of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro, 1992, Maurice Strong who said that “History reminds us that what is not possible today, may be inevitable tomorrow.”

We cannot sit and stay helpless staring at this international climate stalemate. It is now time to take action. We need an emergency climate pathway.

I speak for my delegation. But more than that, I speak for the countless people who will no longer be able to speak for themselves after perishing from the storm. I also speak for those who have been orphaned by this tragedy. I also speak for the people now racing against time to save survivors and alleviate the suffering of the people affected by the disaster.

We can take drastic action now to ensure that we prevent a future where super typhoons are a way of life. Because we refuse, as a nation, to accept a future where super typhoons like Haiyan become a fact of life. We refuse to accept that running away from storms, evacuating our families, suffering the devastation and misery, having to count our dead, become a way of life. We simply refuse to.

We must stop calling events like these as natural disasters. It is not natural when people continue to struggle to eradicate poverty and pursue development and get battered by the onslaught of a monster storm now considered as the strongest storm ever to hit land. It is not natural when science already tells us that global warming will induce more intense storms. It is not natural when the human species has already profoundly changed the climate.

Disasters are never natural. They are the intersection of factors other than physical. They are the accumulation of the constant breach of economic, social, and environmental thresholds.

Most of the time disasters are a result of inequity and the poorest people of the world are at greatest risk because of their vulnerability and decades of maldevelopment, which I must assert is connected to the kind of pursuit of economic growth that dominates the world. The same kind of pursuit of so-called economic growth and unsustainable consumption that has altered the climate system.

Now, if you will allow me, to speak on a more personal note.

Super Typhoon Haiyan made landfall in my family’s hometown and the devastation is staggering. I struggle to find words even for the images that we see from the news coverage. I struggle to find words to describe how I feel about the losses and damages we have suffered from this cataclysm.

Up to this hour, I agonize while waiting for word as to the fate of my very own relatives. What gives me renewed strength and great relief was when my brother succeeded in communicating with us that he has survived the onslaught. In the last two days, he has been gathering bodies of the dead with his own two hands. He is hungry and weary as food supplies find it difficult to arrive in the hardest-hit areas.

We call on this COP to pursue work until the most meaningful outcome is in sight. Until concrete pledges have been made to ensure mobilisation of resources for the Green Climate Fund. Until the promise of the establishment of a loss and damage mechanism has been fulfilled. Until there is assurance on finance for adaptation. Until concrete pathways for reaching the committed 100 billion dollars have been made. Until we see real ambition on stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. We must put the money where our mouths are.

This process under the UNFCCC has been called many names. It has been called a farce. It has been called an annual carbon-intensive gathering of useless frequent flyers. It has been called many names. But it has also been called “The Project To Save The Planet”. It has been called “Saving Tomorrow Today”. We can fix this. We can stop this madness. Right now. Right here, in the middle of this football field.

I call on you to lead us. And let Poland be forever known as the place we truly cared to stop this madness. Can humanity rise to the occasion? I still believe we can.

Finally, in April 2019, Greta spoke at the Houses of Parliament in the UK. Here she gave this powerful climate change speech to the UK’s political leaders:

Transcript of Greta’s Climate Change Speech

Here is the full transcript of Greta’s climate change speech:

My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 16 years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations.

I know many of you don’t want to listen to us – you say we are just children. But we’re only repeating the message of the united climate science.

Many of you appear concerned that we are wasting valuable lesson time, but I assure you we will go back to school the moment you start listening to science and give us a future. Is that really too much to ask?

In the year 2030, I will be 26 years old. My little sister Beata will be 23. Just like many of your own children or grandchildren. That is a great age, we have been told. When you have all of your life ahead of you. But I am not so sure it will be that great for us.

I was fortunate to be born in a time and place where everyone told us to dream big. I could become whatever I wanted to. I could live wherever I wanted to. People like me had everything we needed and more. Things our grandparents could not even dream of. We had everything we could ever wish for and yet now we may have nothing.

Now we probably don’t even have a future anymore.

Because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit and that you only live once.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard.

Is my microphone on? Can you hear me?

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it. That is unless, in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of CO 2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale, inventions that are supposed to clear the atmosphere of astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas escaping from rapidly thawing arctic permafrost.

Nor do these scientific calculations include already locked-in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity – or climate justice – clearly stated throughout the Paris Agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale.

We must also bear in mind that these are just calculations. Estimations. That means that these “points of no return” may occur a bit sooner or later than 2030. No one can know for sure. We can, however, be certain that they will occur approximately in these timeframes because these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.

These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC. Nearly every single major national scientific body around the world unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC.

Did you hear what I just said? Is my English OK? Is the microphone on? Because I’m beginning to wonder.

During the last six months, I have travelled around Europe for hundreds of hours in trains, electric cars, and buses, repeating these life-changing words over and over again. But no one seems to be talking about it, and nothing has changed. In fact, the emissions are still rising.

When I have been travelling around to speak in different countries, I am always offered help to write about the specific climate policies in specific countries. But that is not really necessary. Because the basic problem is the same everywhere. And the basic problem is that basically nothing is being done to halt – or even slow – climate and ecological breakdown, despite all the beautiful words and promises.

The UK is, however, very special. Not only for its mind-blowing historical carbon debt but also for its current, very creative, carbon accounting.

Since 1990 the UK has achieved a 37% reduction of its territorial CO 2 emissions, according to the Global Carbon Project. And that does sound very impressive. But these numbers do not include emissions from aviation, shipping, and those associated with imports and exports. If these numbers are included the reduction is around 10% since 1990 – or an average of 0.4% a year, according to Tyndall Manchester. And the main reason for this reduction is not a consequence of climate policies, but rather a 2001 EU directive on air quality that essentially forced the UK to close down its very old and extremely dirty coal power plants and replace them with less dirty gas power stations. And switching from one disastrous energy source to a slightly less disastrous one will of course result in a lowering of emissions.

But perhaps the most dangerous misconception about the climate crisis is that we have to “lower” our emissions. Because that is far from enough.

Our emissions have to stop if we are to stay below 1.5-2 ° C of warming. The “lowering of emissions” is of course necessary but it is only the beginning of a fast process that must lead to a stop within a couple of decades or less. And by “stop” I mean net-zero – and then quickly on to negative figures. That rules out most of today’s politics.

The fact that we are speaking of “lowering” instead of “stopping” emissions is perhaps the greatest force behind the continuing business as usual. The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels – for example, the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports as well as the planning permission for a brand new coal mine – is beyond absurd.

This ongoing irresponsible behaviour will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind.

People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at.

Every time we make a decision we should ask ourselves; how will this decision affect that curve? We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases. We should no longer only ask: “Have we got enough money to go through with this?” but also: “Have we got enough of the carbon budget to spare to go through with this?” That should and must become the centre of our new currency.

Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?

The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.

“So, exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us – the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say: “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”

Then you say: “That’s not an answer!”

So we say: “We have to start treating the crisis like a crisis – and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”

“That’s still not an answer,” you say.

Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.

We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.

You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist anymore. Because you did not act in time.

Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.

Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfil something, we can do anything. And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable: we can still fix this. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long. We must start today. We have no more excuses.

We children are not sacrificing our education and our childhood for you to tell us what you consider is politically possible in the society that you have created. We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us, and tell us that you really admire what we do.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

I hope my microphone was on. I hope you could all hear me.

Hopefully, these climate change speeches will encourage you to take action in your local community. If you need more inspiration then head to my post on the best TED Talks on climate change , my guide to the best YouTube videos on climate change , and the sustainability poems to inspire you.

Found this post useful? Please consider buying me a virtual coffee to help support the site’s running costs.

Join The Mailing List

Be part of the community and get all the latest articles, news and tips on green living from Moral Fibres straight to your inbox, once a month, free of charge.

Wendy Graham is a sustainability expert and the founder of Moral Fibres. She's dedicated to bringing you sustainability advice you can trust.

Wendy holds a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Geography and an MSc (with Distinction) in Environmental Sustainability - specialising in environmental education.

As well as this, Wendy brings 17 years of professional experience working in the sustainability sector to the blog.

Latest Posts

Toxic Cleaning Products To Avoid & Non-Toxic Alternatives

What Is Palm Oil & Can It Ever Be Sustainable?

Guide To UK Sustainable & Ethical Outdoor Clothing Brands

Ethical Bedding: The Best Sustainable Brands In 2024

Climate Action: It’s time to make peace with nature, UN chief urges

Facebook Twitter Print Email

The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has described the fight against the climate crisis as the top priority for the 21st Century, in a passionate, uncompromising speech delivered on Wednesday at Columbia University in New York.

The landmark address marks the beginning of a month of UN-led climate action, which includes the release of major reports on the global climate and fossil fuel production, culminating in a climate summit on 12 December, the fifth anniversary of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

Nature always strikes back

Mr. Guterres began with a litany of the many ways in which nature is reacting, with “growing force and fury”, to humanity’s mishandling of the environment, which has seen a collapse in biodiversity, spreading deserts, and oceans reaching record temperatures.

The link between COVID-19 and man-made climate change was also made plain by the UN chief, who noted that the continued encroachment of people and livestock into animal habitats, risks exposing us to more deadly diseases.

And, whilst the economic slowdown resulting from the pandemic has temporarily slowed emissions of harmful greenhouse gases, levels of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane are still rising, with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at a record high. Despite this worrying trend, fossil fuel production – responsible for a significant proportion of greenhouse gases – is predicted to continue on an upward path.

‘Time to flick the green switch’

The appropriate global response, said the Secretary-General, is a transformation of the world economy, flicking the “green switch” and building a sustainable system driven by renewable energy, green jobs and a resilient future.

One way to achieve this vision, is by achieving net zero emissions (read our feature story on net zero for a full explanation, and why it is so important). There are encouraging signs on this front, with several developed countries, including the UK, Japan and China, committing to the goal over the next few decades.

Mr. Guterres called on all countries, cities and businesses to target 2050 as the date by which they achieve carbon neutrality – to at least halt national increases in emissions - and for all individuals to do their part.

With the cost of renewable energy continuing to fall, this transition makes economic sense, and will lead to a net creation of 18 million jobs over the next 10 years. Nevertheless, the UN chief pointed out, the G20, the world’s largest economies, are planning to spend 50 per cent more on sectors linked to fossil fuel production and consumption, than on low-carbon energy.

Put a price on carbon

For years, many climate experts and activists have called for the cost of carbon-based pollution to be factored into the price of fossil fuels, a step that Mr. Guterres said would provide certainty and confidence for the private and financial sectors.

Companies, he declared, need to adjust their business models, ensuring that finance is directed to the green economy, and pension funds, which manage some $32 trillion in assets, need to step and invest in carbon-free portfolios.

Far more money, continued the Secretary-General, needs to be invested in adapting to the changing climate, which is hindering the UN’s work on disaster risk reduction. The international community, he said, has “both a moral imperative and a clear economic case, for supporting developing countries to adapt and build resilience to current and future climate impacts”.

Everything is interlinked

The COVID-19 pandemic put paid to many plans, including the UN’s ambitious plan to make 2020 the “super year” for buttressing the natural world. That ambition has now been shifted to 2021, and will involve a number of major climate-related international commitments.

These include the development of a plan to halt the biodiversity crisis; an Oceans Conference to protect marine environments; a global sustainable transport conference; and the first Food Systems Summit, aimed at transforming global food production and consumption.

Mr. Guterres ended his speech on a note of hope, amid the prospect of a new, more sustainable world in which mindsets are shifting, to take into account the importance of reducing each individual’s carbon footprint.

Far from looking to return to “normal”, a world of inequality, injustice and “heedless dominion over the Earth”, the next step, said the Secretary-General, should be towards a safer, more sustainable and equitable path, and for mankind to rethink our relationship with the natural world – and with each other.

You can read the full speech here .

Our planet is in a state of climate emergency.But I also see hope.There is momentum toward carbon neutrality. Many cities are becoming greener. The circular economy is reducing waste. Environmental laws have growing reach. And many people are taking #ClimateAction. pic.twitter.com/dDAHH279Er António Guterres, UN Secretary-General antonioguterres December 2, 2020

• climate change
• climate action

Read Greta Thunberg's full speech at the United Nations Climate Action Summit

Teen environmental activist Greta Thunberg spoke at the United Nations on Monday about climate change, accusing world leaders of inaction and half-measures.

Here are her full remarks:

My message is that we'll be watching you.

This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words and yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency, but no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act then you would be evil and that I refuse to believe.

The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50 percent chance of staying below 1.5 degrees and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

Fifty percent may be acceptable to you, but those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice.

They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

So a 50 percent risk is simply not acceptable to us, we who have to live with the consequences.

How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just business as usual and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than eight and a half years.

There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable and you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

You are failing us, but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you and if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up and change is coming, whether you like it or not.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Environmental Rhetoric: A Tool to Build a Better Future

Julia Covelli

To my parents, for being my biggest supporters in everything I do and raising me to believe that anything is possible. I wouldn’t be where I am in life without your constant love and encouragement. To my Trophy (Julia’s dog), for being my best friend and showing me the purest form of love. I’ll always make it back home for hugs, walks, and to give you all the belly rubs.

Keywords: Environment, Communication, Compassion, Future, Language

So many of us Millennials and Gen Zers grew up watching Bill Nye The Science Guy when learning all our basic scientific knowledge. We watched it because it was entertaining, right? Bill Nye’s creative tunes and scientific demonstrations captured the attention of our child selves and got us to really listen and learn about science. Well, then here’s one more piece of scientific advice to learn from Dr. Nye about the environment: “To leave the world better than you found it, sometimes you have to pick up other people’s trash” (Mellino 1). I’m here to discuss the importance of environmental rhetoric, including those simple words of Bill Nye, in how environmental risk messages can be crafted using environmental arguments. As I talk through environmental rhetoric, I aim to reach young adults interested in becoming more involved in environmental issues. Environmental rhetoric is meaningful to me because it is a type of rhetoric that encourages people to think critically about saving our planet and providing future generations with a better world. As someone who has taken a class that studies papers which use high levels of environmental rhetoric, I have seen first-hand just how valuable this concept is as a rhetorical term. According to Topic-Driven Environmental Rhetoric by Derek G. Ross:

As the emergence of environmental communication in the last twenty-five years attests, environmental rhetoric is everywhere and touches our lives every day. From the ongoing cultural and political struggle over climate change to the very local disputes over the health of individual communities, environmental rhetorics structure our relations with the human and non-human systems of which we are a part and on which we depend. (Ross xi)

Environmental Rhetoric teaches how individuals can prevent climate change, brings attention to an environmental issue or disaster, and can help leaders compose environmental risk and crisis communication messages for a community. Environmental Rhetoric is crucial in rhetoric regarding environmental issues as it is a tool to inspire critical thinking about bettering the environment through language and visual aids.

Environmental rhetoric can be a teaching tool for helping environmental risk communicators. I am using environmental rhetoric along with pathos to show images of environmental destruction in an emotional way to reach audiences. Based on the article, “Myth and Multiple Readings in Environmental Rhetoric: The Case of An Inconvenient Truth,” by Thomas Rosteck and Thomas S. Frentz, a key part of how environmental rhetoric has persuaded those in the past is through political jeremiad. Political jeremiad is “the pragmatic attempt to persuade that the environment is doomed without immediate action” (Rosteck and Frentz 1, 2).

This article discusses how the term was used first by the Puritans to encourage people to understand the severity of environmental issues and how it allowed people to be more strongly persuaded by appealing to their emotions. The research in this article about environmental rhetoric dating back to the Puritans provides further justification for the idea that the term holds significant weight in teaching individuals about environmental issues. From my own experience working as an intern on hydroponic gardens, I have seen firsthand how environmental rhetoric works as a teaching tool. I developed presentations and put together videos explaining the key components of how the hydroponic gardens conserve water and help preserve our planet’s resources. These visual aids also provided images of environmental destruction that can come

from wasting too much water. The graphics were highly successful to the point that I convinced my young adult audience to use hydroponics in their own garden and work towards conserving more water themselves. Additionally, I am able to use environmental rhetoric to analyze Severn Suzuki’s speech at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in 1992.

Environmental rhetoric explains how Suzuki appeals to the compassion and empathy of the United Nations members. Similar to the way in which the Puritans used political jeremiad to invoke emotion in people, Aristotle’s pathos unravels how Suzuki appeals to the compassion of the United Nations Conference in their speech. Suzuki emphasizes:

I am here to speak for all generations to come. I am here to speak — speak on behalf of the starving children around the world whose cries go unheard. I am here to speak for the countless animals dying across this planet, because they have nowhere left to go. I am afraid to go out in the sun now, because of the holes in our ozone. I am afraid to breathe the air, because I don’t know what chemicals are in it (Suzuki).

Suzuki uses imagery such as “the starving children” and “the countless animals dying” to invoke this compassion in their audience. Suzuki is able to trigger these compassionate feelings in the U.N. members because of how the vivid language paints a mental picture of the devastation being discussed. I am able to see, by applying environmental rhetoric, how Suzuki pinpoints such emotional images of environmental issues to bring forth compassion in their audience.

Environmental rhetoric attracts attention to an environmental issue or disaster by using visual depictions of devastation and transparent language. Claire Ahn argues in, “Visual Rhetoric in Environmental Documentaries,” that visual tools of environmental rhetoric help people see how worried they should be about a given issue. The author mentions a specific anecdote on visual environmental rhetoric where they saw a video of “…a large sea turtle near Costa Rica that had a ten to twelve centimeter straw lodged up its nostril. This eight-minute video is excruciating to watch: as the team attempts to help the turtle, viewers can see the turtle squeezing its eyes, apparently in extreme pain as blood starts to drip down its nose” (Ahn 10). Ahn explains

that this video made them well up in tears and they will always remember “the visual of the turtle in pain because of a small piece of plastic that was not disposed of properly” (Ahn 10). Ahn’s response exhibits how this visual can enable people to have a deeper level of concern for the pollution to the ocean because they are able to picture exactly what damage is being done by the pollution. I understand that an argument could be made by especially sensitive individuals that someone seeing this video or reading about it in the article may be less inclined to have concern for the environment because it’s too hard to think about, so instead people will choose to ignore the issue further. However, based on Ahn’s own response, I argue that the graphic images evoke sympathy and appreciation for the environment. Ahn explains that even their own interpretation of seeing the video gave them a newfound appreciation for animals and a desire to protect them. Additionally, the team was successful in removing the straw which encourages viewers of this video to see that helping the environment is a real possibility if we as young adults learn to put in the proper effort. Therefore, I think generally visual tools of environmental rhetoric are a well-received option in weighing concern for environmental issues and disasters.

In their article, “New York Times Environmental Rhetoric: Constituting Artists of Living,” Betsy L. Verhoeven discusses how “Killingsworth and Palmer note that much environmental rhetoric ‘realistically mimics the experience of daily life without seriously challenging … the values of consumer mentality’” (Verhoeven 22). Environmental rhetoric attempts to resonate with an individual’s existing values by not greatly differing from the person’s natural decision making processes. One example of this in practice is how the parents of the little girl I babysat in high school chose to become more environmentally friendly after they saw a video using transparent language about the future of our planet if we do not work towards change. The parent’s natural mentality is to make the world safer for their daughter, and the environmental rhetoric in the video showed them what more they can do to ensure their daughter grows up in a healthy world.

Vivid language can be beneficial when putting together environmental risk and crisis communication messages for a community dealing with an environmental issue. For example, in the article “The Significance of Crisis and Risk Communication” by Heath and O’Hair in 2009, they discuss how Hurricane “Rita posed different risks than Katrina. One took on crisis proportion that in fact affected how people responded in risk management ways to the other— including a highly visible and eventually fairly dysfunctional evacuation of the Houston, Texas area” (Heath and O’Hair 6). This article explains how the risk communication was not effective because people only went by what they had “seen on television during Katrina” (Heath and O’Hair 6).

When I use environmental rhetoric as a tool to separate the responses to different natural disasters, I am able to see the more distinct separations between the events due to the clear language differences. Additionally, in the article “Tone at the Top: CEO Environmental Rhetoric and Environmental Performance,” Cong, Freedman, and Park argue that “corporations and their executives have contributed to both environmental degradation and in trying to reduce its impact. In a sense, corporations in environmentally sensitive industries can either be leaders or laggards in dealing with environmental issues” (Cong et al 322). This article helps to understand the significance of environmental rhetoric in risk messages because of how it discusses the part that leaders of corporations play in environmental risk communication. According to the article, “Disney World Is Officially Closing Due to Hurricane Irma,” published in 2017, The Walt Disney Company provides one example of corporate management using vivid language to formulate an environmental risk message to their community. The company released a statement on September 8, 2017, ahead of Hurricane Irma that “based on the latest forecasts for Hurricane Irma and keeping safety top of mind, Walt Disney World Resort will be closing…” (Bennett). The use of phrases from the management team such as “keeping safety top of mind” and “will be closing” allow the environmental risk message to be direct and clearer to the audience. These examples show how environmental rhetoric is a tool for those leaders and CEOs with power to share their knowledge with others.

Environmental rhetoric involves precise words and visuals to teach people to make a difference and save our environment. Everything from Bill Nye the Science Guy to Severn Suzuki’s speech support this idea by how these sources appeal to the audience with language, videos, and images. Now it’s up to you all as young adults with a passion for environmental science to decide your own stance on the term. The term Environmental Rhetoric is key in rhetoric dealing with environmental issues because it allows environmentalists to teach others about how to prevent climate change, directs attention towards an environmental issue or disaster, and can make a difference in forming environmental risk and crisis communication messages. Severn Suzuki says in their speech, “I’m only a child, yet I know we are all part of a family — five billion strong; in fact 30 million species strong — and borders and governments will never change that. I’m only a child, yet I know we are all in this together and should act as one single world towards one single goal” (Suzuki). So, if you as millennials and Gen Zers, the incoming leaders of our world, agree with this child who spoke fearlessly to the world in 1992 amidst her frustration, what is the next step? I’ve done my research and personally experienced the devastation of Hurricane Irma in 2017 from lack of environmental rhetoric by risk communicators. I leave you with this thought…what life do you want for future generations of your family? I argue that by continued understanding of environmental rhetoric, it can be better taught to help decrease environmental issues, and you can leave future generations with a much better chance at living in a healthy environment.

Works Cited

Ahn, C. (2018). Visual rhetoric in environmental documentaries (T). University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/

Bennett, Bailey. “Disney World Is Officially Closing Due to Hurricane Irma.” Travel + Leisure , https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/travel-warnings/disney-world-closing- hurricane-irma.

Cong, Yu, et al. “Tone at the Top: CEO Environmental Rhetoric and Environmental Performance.” Advances in Accounting , vol. 30, no. 2, 2014, pp. 322–327., https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/j.adiac.2014.09.007.

Heath, Robert, et al. “The Significance of Crisis and Risk Communication.” Taylor & Francis , Taylor & Francis, 28 Sept. 2010, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/ 10.4324/9780203891629-7/significance-crisis-risk-communication-robert-heath-dan-hair.

Mellino, Cole. “12 Must-Read Quotes by Bill Nye the Science Guy.” EcoWatch , EcoWatch, 27 June 2016, https://www.ecowatch.com/12-must-read-quotes-by-bill-nye-the-science- guy-1882001753.html.

Ross, Derek. Topic-Driven Environmental Rhetoric , Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central , http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wfu/detail.action?docID=4813482. Created from wfu on 2021-09-30 22:36:10.

Rosteck, Thomas, et al. “Myth and Multiple Readings in Environmental Rhetoric: The Case Of an Inconvenient Truth.” Quarterly Journal of Speech , vol. 95, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–19., https:// doi.org/10.1080/00335630802621086.

Suzuki, Severn. “Speech at U.N. Conference on Environment and Development.” American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank, 1992, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ severnsuzukiunearthsummit.htm

Verhoeven, Betsy L. “‘New York Times’ Environmental Rhetoric: Constituting Artists of Living.” Rhetoric Review , vol. 30, no. 1, Taylor & Francis, Ltd., 2011, pp. 19–36, http:// www.jstor.org/stable/40997229.

Feeling Rhetoric Copyright © 2022 by Julia Covelli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• General Assembly
• Third Committee

Environmental Crises, Climate Emergencies Unfairly Threatening Livelihoods of Indigenous Communities, Most Vulnerable, Third Committee Heard Today

Environment rapporteur underscores low probability of achieving sustainable development goals by 2030.

While pandemics and wars are devastating events, they are transient distractions compared to the magnitude of extreme poverty, grotesque inequality and environmental catastrophes that threaten our future, United Nations experts told the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), as delegates continued their debate on human rights today, holding a series of dialogues.

“We are living in a climate emergency,” warned David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, underlining the strikingly low probability of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.  It will require an additional investment of $33.6 trillion over the next eight years, he added, citing inadequate funding as the major obstacle to progress.  It may be tempting to blame the COVID‑19 pandemic or the war in Ukraine, he said, but the painful truth is that the world was off-track even before these terrible events.

The two pillars of the global economy — the exploitation of people and the exploitation of the planet — are fundamentally incompatible with full enjoyment of human rights, he asserted.  Voicing concern over the failure to apply the widely endorsed “polluter pays” principle, he emphasized that high-income States — the main cause of the triple planetary crisis — bear a special responsibility to respect the right to a sustainable environment and assist climate-vulnerable nations in responding to the climate emergency.

Along similar lines, Marcos Orellana, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste, said the voices of indigenous peoples are too often silenced in decision-making processes involving chemicals and wastes.  This is a form of racial discrimination that aggravates the disproportionate harm indigenous peoples suffer from toxic pollution, he stressed, adding that exposure to toxins has caused harmful effects on endocrine and reproductive functions, birth defects, cancers, and deaths.

 The environmental violence inflicted upon indigenous peoples infringes on their rights to land, self-determination, and a healthy environment, he cautioned, calling on States to end the double standard of allowing the production of highly hazardous pesticides that they ban in their own territories.

By 2030, the unavoidable economic losses due to climate change are projected to reach $290-580 billion, while 3.3 billion people are living in countries with high human vulnerability to the phenomenon, cautioned Ian Fry, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change.  Spotlighting recent climate change disasters, he drew attention to Zimbabwe, where 60,000 people were internally displaced in 2019, as well as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, where the number of food-insecure people reached 6.4 million in 2021.

In 2020, Cyclone Amphan, which hit Bangladesh, caused 500,000 families to lose their homes, he added.  Voicing concern over violence suffered by climate rights defenders, including indigenous peoples, he called for the participation of the most affected in decision-making.

In the ensuing dialogue, Fiji’s delegate voiced concern over the lack of global solidarity and political will in response to climate crises.  Echoing her concerns, Pakistan’s delegate stressed that her country is one of the worst-affected.  Drawing attention to recent devastating floods, in which over 1,700 people lost their lives and 1,300 were injured, she called on the Special Rapporteur to mobilize climate financing and technology transfer for developing countries.

Meanwhile, Australia’s delegate, describing climate change as an existential threat to the region, highlighted her country’s $2 billion climate finance commitment from 2020 to 2025.

Later in the day, the focus shifted to the rights of persons with disabilities, with two experts, Gerard Quinn, Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, and Rosemary Kayess, Chair of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, presenting their reports and highlighting the impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic, armed conflict – including the war in Ukraine — and climate change on persons with disabilities.

Also briefing the Committee today was Fabian Salvioli, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 25 October, to continue its consideration of human rights.

Interactive Dialogues:  Environment

DAVID RICHARD BOYD, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, warned that the probability of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 is strikingly low.  It may be tempting to blame the COVID‑19 pandemic, or the war in Ukraine, but the painful truth is that the world was off track even before these two terrible events.  The global economy is based on two pillars — the exploitation of people and the exploitation of the planet — that are fundamentally incompatible with the full enjoyment of human rights.  While pandemics and wars are devastating events, they are transient distractions compared to the magnitude of extreme poverty, grotesque inequality and environmental catastrophe that threaten our future, he said.  The biggest problem is not the Sustainable Development Goals themselves, but the way they are perceived and portrayed by States as merely aspirational.  In fact, the Goals are built on a robust foundation of legally binding and enforceable human rights and international environmental laws.  To this end, he called for a rights-based approach, which prioritizes improving conditions for the poorest and most vulnerable.

He went on to underline that the major obstacle to progress is inadequate funding.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 will require an additional investment of $4.2 trillion per year and $33.6 trillion over the next eight years. In this context, he voiced concern over structural problems in the global economy, such as astronomical debt levels and debt servicing costs as well as difficulty accessing adequate finance for low-income countries, massive subsidies for fossil fuels and other destructive industries, tax evasion, international investment and trade treaties that prioritize profits over human rights, and a failure to apply the widely endorsed “polluter pays” principle.  Another problem is the longstanding failure of wealthy States to fulfil their commitments to provide development assistance.

To fulfil their human rights obligations and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, States should take immediate rights-based action to improve air quality by reducing air pollution; ensure everyone has access to safe and sufficient water; transform industrial agriculture to produce healthy and sustainable food; accelerate actions required to address the global climate and energy crises, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy; and conserve biodiversity and detoxify people’s bodies and the planet.  Moreover, he called on States to take urgent action to safeguard environmental human rights defenders.  High-income States, as the main cause of the triple planetary crisis, bear a special responsibility when it comes to respecting the right to a sustainable environment, he stressed, noting that a key priority is assisting climate vulnerable nations to respond to the climate emergency.

When the floor opened for comments and questions, the delegate of the United States reiterated his country’s commitment to working domestically and internationally to protect the environment and respect human rights.  He then asked the Special Rapporteur about immediate steps for a shared understanding of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

The delegate of the European Union asked about the Special Rapporteur’s engagement with Member States in assisting them to develop environmental law.  Referring to recommendations the report makes for States, financial institutions and businesses, she asked him to explain his engagement with these stakeholders.

The representative of Chile noted that, in his country, the right to a clean environment is a constitutional right.  He also said that the Government puts people and their rights “in the heart of everything it does”.

Luxembourg ’s representative said her country has surpassed many goals set in energy consumption and green energy use.  She, however, expressed regret that the United Nations is not leading the way in energy efficiency, calling for more coherence in implementation of its practices.

The representative of Malaysia said his country is pursuing clean, green and resilient development through a whole-of-nation approach, outlining three main priorities established by the Government.  He enquired how his country could capitalize on the recent recognition of the access to a healthy, sustainable environment as a universal right in bringing his country back on track to meet the Sustainable Development Goals.

Similarly, the delegate of Algeria raised a question about climate financing, noting that developed countries don’t honor their commitments under the Paris Agreement.  He asked whether such behavior can be considered a human rights violation and how developed countries could be held accountable.

The delegate of Syria expressed regret about some formulations in the report regarding States not meeting most of the climate targets outlined.

Portugal ’s representative said her country was one of the first to recognize the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment in the Constitution, noting that the document also mentions specific obligations of States in this regard.  Recalling the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations on strengthening the regulation of supply chains through due diligence, she requested that he elaborate on this process.

Responding, Mr. BOYD outlined three main categories of action to ensure the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment – advancing legal recognition and mainstreaming this right, accelerating action to fulfil it, and monitoring performance and progress.  Elaborating on each category and recognizing the non-legally binding nature of recent resolutions, he underscored that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment should be recognized as a law at the global level.  On the national level, he said that several human rights treaties could be used to enshrine this right, supporting development of an additional protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights on the right to a sustainable environment.  He also emphasized the critical importance of monitoring the performance and progress of implementation.

Turning to his engagement with States, he reported close cooperation with national Governments in providing recommendations on strengthening their laws on a clean environment, outlining more than 500 good practices from more than 150 States.  “We are living in a climate emergency,” he said, underscoring the need for urgent action on mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage.  Spotlighting the shift to renewable energy sources as one of the good practices, he pointed to the example of Uruguay, noting that it took a decade for the country to shift from a high dependency on fossil fuels for energy production to renewable sources.  Due to substantial investment in wind, solar and hydro energy sources, he also noted that Portugal has shifted from generating 30 per cent to 60 per cent of renewable energy, with the view of increasing shares to 80 per cent in 2015 and 100 per cent in 2030.  He further observed that several countries have achieved 99 per cent or 100 per cent energy generation from renewable sources.

Noting that the question on environment-related loss and damage ties in with several queries regarding financial support for developing and low-income nations, he pointed to a “massive” finance gap of over $4 trillion a year.  He expressed regret that responses from wealthy nations, which are mainly responsible, have been insufficient.  Highlighting the current triple environmental crisis, he underscored the need for prevention based on the rights-based approach.  “We are the privileged few,” he said, stressing that the impacts of the global environmental crises are falling largely upon the shoulders of vulnerable and marginalized communities.  “It is absolutely imperative that we, as leaders, accelerate our efforts to fulfil everyone’s right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.”

Also speaking were representatives of Mexico, Switzerland, Slovenia, France, Republic of Korea, Germany, Namibia, Brazil and the Sovereign Order of Malta in its role as observer.

MARCOS ORELLANA, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste, presented his report ( A/77/183 ) addressing human rights violations and abuses that indigenous peoples suffer from.  He said that in many parts of the world, a State’s sovereignty as well as its ability to regulate extractive industries are fictional principles, though States use them both to justify extraction of natural resources on indigenous people’s territories in violation of their human rights, he said.  Further, oil and gas companies continuing to search for hydrocarbon deposits, despite the climate crisis, will lead to States further promoting fossil fuels.  Other problems affecting indigenous lands include agribusinesses, set up near or on them, exposing the lands to toxic pesticides through aerial fumigation, as well as hazardous waste dumping .

He said that indigenous people’s voices are too often silenced in processes related to chemical and waste disposal.  Affirming that this is a form of racial discrimination, he highlighted the double bind it presents:  indigenous people’s limited access to healthcare exposes them more to adverse effects of toxics; and they have limited access to justice because of discrimination, corruption and a lack of protective laws.  Noting that effects of toxics exposure has resulted in birth defects, cancers and deaths for indigenous people, he stressed that this environmental violence is a violation of the right to self-determination and a clean, healthy environment.  He called on States to protect indigenous people’s rights, and end the double standard of allowing exports of hazardous pesticides that they ban in their own territories.  He also called on the private sector to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from indigenous people affected by their activities.  Highlighting that the loss of indigenous cultures deprives humanity of both richness and heritage, he stressed that the effective enjoyment of the rights recognized by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples rests on respect for the right to live in a non-toxic environment.  “Toxic substances should have no place in the lands or bodies of indigenous peoples,” he said.

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, the representative of the European Union, in her capacity as an observer, asked the Special Rapporteur to offer examples of good practices to reduce plastic waste.

The representative of the Marshall Islands welcomed the recent resolution of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) entitled “Technical Assistance and Capacity Building to Address the Nuclear Legacy in the Marshall Islands” as a key opportunity to assist in addressing the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations.  She asked about sacrificed zones — what steps could be taken to better identify them and what body or bodies would do that work.

The representative of Nigeria highlighted redoubled efforts to clean up oil contamination in the Southern Ogoniland region and made recommendations to expand an alternative livelihood project for water-improvement for the Ogoni people.

The representative of Algeria asked how to implement a framework in developing countries to remedy human rights violations resulting from the illegal dumping of hazardous waste produced in the Northern hemisphere.

The representative of China expressed deep concern about the hazardous waste dumping of the United States in indigenous lands as well as outside its borders.  She invited the United States to reflect on the genocide of its indigenous people.

The representative of Iran suggested that the Special Rapporteur monitor the transfer of polluting technology to developing countries and provide guidelines to dispose of it correctly.

Responding first to the European Union’s question, Mr. ORELLANA said recycling and incineration are ineffectively carried out, as less than 10 per cent of eligible goods have been recycled in the past decade, adding that incineration of plastics releases more toxics into the atmosphere.  Good practices must not only focus on the end step of waste management, but on the beginning — looking at toxics used in plastics, the volume produced and which polymers — so that a circular economy can exist.  To questions from China and the Marshall Islands, he noted that military exercises and weapons are responsible for water and ground contamination through use of nuclear testing and polyfluoroalkyl substances or ‘forever chemicals’ in fire drills.  To the Marshall Islands point, he said that sacrifice zones emerge from misguided development paths, but also the failure to account for the primacy of economic interests over vulnerable communities.  Welcoming Nigeria’s example of clean up and remediation measures, he turned to the legacy of contamination.  Small scale gold mining creates contaminated zones through the use of mercury, mainly to satisfy the jewellery industry, financial speculation, and technology.  He lamented that the promise of the Minimata Convention would be impossible to fulfil, given the proliferation of small-scale mining.

To Algeria’s question about waste movement, he said that impacts of toxics on the body may only manifest after five to twenty years, stressing that countries must not use statute of limitation laws to prevent courts from hearing cases related to harm induced from dumped toxics, recalling Sweden’s hazardous dumping in Arica, Chile in 1984.  To Iran’s point, he stressed that the transfer of dirty and obsolete technologies from the Global North to the Global South is a transfer of hazardous waste.  Finally, he said that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People protects rights regarding the conservation of plants, animals and minerals to safeguard traditional medicine.  It also includes provisions for free, prior, and informed consent and justice and explicitly talks about not storing or dumping on indigenous lands, which all rests on the right to a non-toxic environment.

Climate Change

IAN FRY, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, said his report ( A/77/226 ) was compiled in consultation with Governments, civil society organizations and United Nations agencies.  Noting that throughout the world, human rights are negatively impacted and violated due to climate change, he stressed that a human-induced phenomenon represents the most pervasive threat the natural environment and human societies have ever experienced.  Inaction by developed economies and major corporations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has led to demands for “climate reparations” for losses incurred, he said, noting that Group of 20 Member countries account for 78 per cent of emissions over the last decade.  Subsidies for fossil fuels are estimated to be about $500 billion annually, he added, far exceeding States’ promises to support climate change mitigation.  Further, fossil fuel producers are using investor-State dispute settlements  within the Energy Charter Treaty to sue States for acting on climate change, he said.

Studies by the International Federation of the Red Cross have found that about 3.3 billion people are living in countries with high human vulnerability to climate change, he said.  In this regard, he pointed to the 60,000 internally displaced persons in Zimbabwe (2019); 160,000 internally displaced persons and 1.72 million affected in Mozambique; 6.4 million people in 2021 touched by food insecurity in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (2021); 500,000 families left without their homes in Bangladesh after Cyclone Amphan and the destruction of 149,000 hectares of agricultural lands; and 407 victims of Super-Typhoon Rai in the Philippines, which caused losses of $336 million to agricultural goods.  Noting that economic losses due to climate change are projected to reach $290 — 580 billion by 2030, he noted that, since 2008, an annual average of over 20 million people have been internally displaced by weather-related extreme events.  Speaking of a “participation disconnect”, he encouraged the participation of the most affected in decision-making, underlining violence suffered by climate rights defenders, including indigenous peoples, sometimes resulting in their deaths.  The General Assembly should agree to establish a climate change redress and grievance mechanism to allow vulnerable communities to seek recourse for damages incurred, as well as mandate the International Law Commission to develop international legal procedure protection to environmental and indigenous human rights defenders, he said.

The representative of the European Union , in its capacity as observer, pointed to her bloc’s initiatives in climate mitigation and adaptation.  She asked the Rapporteur to further elaborate on his core activities to protect human rights in a climate change context, especially concerning the protection of climate defenders.  She also asked about supporting children’s rights in the context of climate change.

The representative of Australia stressed that climate has already had significant impacts on Australia and the Pacific, posing an existential threat to the region, threatening cultural heritage, livelihoods and security.  His country will stand “shoulder to shoulder” with its partners to address the crises, he said, pointing to its actions to support vulnerable, affected populations, including through provision of increased climate finance in the region.  As part of Australia’s $2 billion climate finance commitment from 2020 to 2025, he said, the country will spend $700 million on climate and disaster resilience in the Pacific.  He asked how action on loss and damage, disaster risk reduction and humanitarian assistance can be made more effective at the community level.

The representative of Ireland , referring to the “participation disconnect”, inquired as to how States can work better to ensure the participation of groups in vulnerable situations at all levels, and about good practices.  Further, she asked for an elaboration on the recommendation to establish a process to revise the Gender Action Plan.  The representative of Algeria noted that most recommendations in the report target the fossil fuel sector, giving the impression that it is the only source of activity responsible for climate change impacts.  He noted that, while international transport and agriculture are indicated as significant sources of emissions, recommendations do not address those sources.  Pointing to the recommendation to establish an international, legally binding fossil fuel financial-disclosure mechanism to require Governments, businesses and financial institutions to disclose their investments in fossil fuels, he asked how this can be possible in the current crisis.  It will impact all other human rights in energy-producing countries, he said, asking how States could mitigate the impact of such a measure.  Pointing to the recommendation for a human rights tribunal to hold accountable Governments and different actors for their investments in fossil fuels, he asked if such a proposal can hold States accountable for not honoring their commitments in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

The representative of Fiji asked to what extent and urgency can the Rapporteur’s office advance the establishment of a loss and damage facility that will assist countries facing multidimensional challenges in meeting development aspirations.  She inquired whether his mandate allows further engagement in the formulation of the multilateral vulnerability index, and why there is a lack of global solidarity, political will and action in response to climate crises.  The representative of the Russian Federation said his country makes a sizable contribution to efforts to reduce the anthropogenic impact on the environment.  Despite assurances of greenhouse emissions reductions, the United States has yet to fulfil its promises, he said.  Advocating for the improved efficiency of existing international legal mechanisms in environmental protection, he expressed concern over the erosion of the mandates of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other international environmental and climate platforms.  Noting with regret attempts to shift the discussion of environmental issues to other non-specialized bodies, he said this has led to the arbitrary expansion of Human Rights Council and OHCHR mandates.  The representative of Pakistan asked the Rapporteur to highlight perspectives and needs of developing countries in facing effects of climate change that are not of their making.  Noting that her country is one of the worst-affected, she pointed to the recent devastating floods in which over 1,700 people lost their lives and 1,300 were injured.  The total estimated damage cost of this calamity equals 10 per cent of Pakistan’s GDP, she said, asking the Rapporteur to mobilize climate financing and technology transfer for developing countries and inquiring as to what mechanisms can be employed for debt relief to cancel or restructure debts equitably.

Mr. FRY, responding, underscored the need for accountability mechanisms to deal with disappearances or arrests of climate rights defenders, calling for effective international mechanisms to protect them.  Adding that efforts could be directed at loss and damage at the community level, he underscored the enormous scale of impacts at the national level, which requires a proper international response.  Turning to the “participation disconnect”, he urged States to learn from other environmental treaty bodies and open up the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to greater participation by civil society.  On revising the Gender Action Plan under the Convention, he said this needs to focus on specific issues, thus becoming “fit for purposes”.  On non-economic losses, he spotlighted the enormous human cost of displacement due to climate change.  Discussing a loss and damage facility, he noted that climate change financing moves slowly and suggested that experts look at innovative sources of financing.

Also speaking were the representatives of Poland, Luxembourg, Brazil, Liechtenstein, United Kingdom, India, China, Iran, Iceland and Bangladesh.

General Debate Statements

KENNETH WELLES (Federated States of Micronesia ), drawing attention to countries where all citizens have not yet received the COVID‑19 vaccine, said no nation should fight the pandemic alone.  Pointing to scholarships that have provided opportunities for women and girls to pursue education and achieve their career goals, he stressed that more women than ever before are taking on important leadership positions in private and public sectors in his country.  He went on to underline that women, children, and persons with disabilities are often the first to be affected by the climate crisis.  The people of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Pacific are already experiencing its impacts and soon, if not now, the whole world will face the same crises, he warned.  Stressing that the 1.5 degrees pathway of the Paris Agreement must be met, he urged all countries to update their nationally determined contributions and commit to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

DIARRA DIME LABILLE ( France ) said the Russian Federation and its allies must end their massive human rights violations in Ukraine.  She also expressed concern over efforts within the Russian Federation to stifle anti-war dissent.  Further, France calls on the authorities in Iran to guarantee freedom of expression and ensure equal rights between women and men.  In Syria, she said only a credible and inclusive political solution will bring sustainable peace and the voluntary, safe and dignified return of refugees.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban must respect relevant Security Council resolutions, while in Mali, France vigorously condemns attacks on civilians, notably by Islamic State in the Greater Sahara.  She regretted the absence of debate on human rights violations in Xinjiang, calling on all Member States to pursue collective efforts to fully realize the rights of women and girls.  She also encouraged Member States to support the General Assembly’s biennial resolution for a universal moratorium on the death penalty.

NASEER AHMED FAIQ ( Afghanistan ) said that extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests and detainment of former security forces are just some of the human rights violations in his country, whereas the forced displacement of ethnic groups in the Baghlan and Panjshir provinces should be investigated as war crimes.  Of particular concern is the situation of women and girls, which he described as gender apartheid.  School closures and increased scrutiny of their actions and dress in public and private has erased them from social and economic spheres, he added.  Turning to terrorist attacks targeting Hazara, Shia and other minorities, he recalled the attack on the Kaaj Educational Centre in Kabul, stating it was not only an attack on girls’ access to education and on an ethnic group, but a manifestation of the Taliban’s failure to secure power.  He called on the United Nations to implement a fact-finding mission on the Hazara genocide, summary killings, and forced displacement, while urging all Member States to maintain pressure on the de facto Taliban authorities to comply with their commitments to form a just and inclusive society.  He called for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) to play a greater role in the promotion of human rights in the country.

OMAR KADIRI ( Morocco ) underscored actions in his country to keep national legislation in line with international conventions, highlighting significant legislation reform.  In addition, he cited the National Action Plan on the protection of democracy and human rights, adding that Morocco has just been elected to the Human Rights Council for the period 2023-2025.  He underscored his country’s commitment to work to promote fundamental freedoms, including by fostering cooperation and strengthening the human rights system.  Further, he pointed to women’s participation in the country’s Government, where six serve as ministers and 150 as members of Parliament.

NUSAIBA HASHIM MOHAMED ALI IDRES ( Sudan ), associating herself with China, said her country’s Constitutional document contains an entire chapter devoted to human rights and freedoms.  Highlighting ongoing cooperation with several human rights organisms, she pointed to the goal of complying with the obligations of international law and continuing to strengthen human rights nationally and internationally.  Being a party to most human rights instruments, Sudan is making efforts to adapt their national policies in line with the Conventions the country has signed.  She spotlighted policy and programme efforts to carry out the democratic transition, underscoring institutional and legal reforms to address human rights.  She also noted that her country has lifted all restrictions hindering delivery of humanitarian assistance, particularly in conflict areas.  In this regard, the transition Government adopted projects related to displaced persons to improve their living conditions.

KYAW MOE TUN ( Myanmar ), noting that a priority of a civilian government is to promote and protect human rights, said that since the illegal military coup in February 2021, people in Myanmar have been suffering from atrocities committed by the military junta.  These include indiscriminate killings, arbitrary arrests, and sexual violence.  Further, he said military forces launch air strikes and use heavy weaponry against civilian areas, followed by raids of junta soldiers, who shoot up villages and torch houses, sometimes with the villagers trapped inside.  Noting that innocent people are killed in such attacks, he stressed that hundreds or thousands have had to flee their villages, adding that those who could not were used as human shields by junta forces.  He noted that one million people have been displaced in Myanmar since the coup last year.  Recalling the 24 December 2021 massacre in the Hpruso Township, Karenni (Kayah) Township, he underscored violations to children’s right to education, freedom of expression and right to privacy.  “In many areas, individuals who refuse to show the contents of their phone are shot dead by military forces,” he said, adding that “the military junta is pursuing a tactic of punishment by proxy”, abducting or detaining dear ones of targeted individuals the junta cannot find.  Adding that there are many unexplained deaths of political prisoners, while the junta continues to enjoy impunity, he appealed to the Security Council to take swift and decisive actions to end the military dictatorship.

YOUSEF S. I. SALAH ( Libya ), spotlighting violence, terrorism, religious extremism, racial and tribal conflicts and foreign occupation – such as in the occupied Palestinian territories – urged the international community to consider serious reform of the human rights system.  Developing countries continue to be denied their right to development due to the unfavourable economic environment, which forces them to yield control and exacerbates poverty, illiteracy and disease, he emphasized.  The imbalance between economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights goes against the interconnected and indivisible nature of human rights, he said.  Further, this imbalance erodes confidence in the international community’s ability to address human rights issues fairly, adds uncertainty about the future and injects fear of selective and double-standard approaches.

HERINIRINA RAVELONARIVO ANDRIAMASY ( Madagascar ) voiced concern over the many challenges facing the international community since the COVID-19 pandemic began, including the food and energy price increase and food insecurity.  Climate change is generating population displacement, while impacting agricultural production, further amplifying the risk of fundamental human rights violations, he said.  In this context, he called on States to pay special attention to marginalized persons.  He commended the approach to human rights of the Government of China, which favours the development of its entire population..  Citing a lack of objectivity and impartiality within the United Nations, he warned against instrumentalization of human rights.

RIM KNANI ( Tunisia ), aligning herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, called on the international community to fulfil its obligations to safeguard human rights, avoid selectiveness and double standards, and ensure that the Human Rights Council and other organizations do not politicize human rights.  There must be greater collaboration to share technical expertise and strengthen States’ capacities based on their needs, she added.  The nexus between peace and security, development and human rights requires the treatment of human rights as indivisible, she emphasized.  The international community must formulate policies that support development, provide financing for achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, fight hate speech, ensure gender equality and enhance the role of women and youth.

RUXANDRA STANCIU ( Romania ), aligning herself with the European Union, said that policies in support of persons belonging to minorities must be tied to cultural, historical and social realities.  She spotlighted her country’s national efforts, legislation and Constitution to demonstrate its inclusion, promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities, rejecting any form of ethnically or religiously motivated intolerance or violence.  Ethnic and religious diversity are sources of development that enrich any culture or society, she emphasized.  Turning to persons with disabilities, she detailed her country’s policies and efforts in support of their rights.

The representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), raised concern over the unabated increase in missing persons worldwide.  Over the past five years, cases registered by ICRC have increased by 80 per cent to more than 180,000.  This represents just the tip of the iceberg, as there are many more cases that are not registered, he stressed, adding that States are insufficiently prepared to prevent people from going missing, to clarify their fate and whereabouts when they do, and to address the needs of their families.  While people go missing in a broad range of contexts, armed conflicts remain a critical factor driving these ever-larger numbers.

He called on States to abide by the rules that international humanitarian law provides to account for people, to prevent family separation and people from going missing, and to ensure that the dead are treated with dignity and properly identified in armed conflicts.  In international armed conflicts, States must account for protected persons by sharing relevant information on prisoners of war, wounded, sick and dead military personnel and other protected persons in their hands with the Central Tracing Agency of ICRC.

The representative of China , exercising his right of reply to France’s statement on Xinjiang, said that France, the United States and other Western countries remain obsessed with fabrications smearing and attacking China.  Rejecting such allegations, he pointed to double standards and hypocrisy that has emerged in the Third Committee.  In a previous intervention on 20 October, the United States attacked several developing countries, he said, noting that the country remained silent about violations within its borders and by its allies.  If the United States is truly committed to the universality of human rights, he said it should dedicate five minutes of its next intervention on naming and shaming allied countries.  Adding that the United States and other Western countries have weaponized human rights issues, he underscored that, on 6 October, the Human Rights Council explicitly rejected the Xinjiang draft decision proposed by the United States and other countries, which brought the topic to the Third Committee.  Pointing to an attempt to organize a side meeting on Xinjiang, he called on Member States to see through this “political conspiracy” and “resist the fuss” of such event.

In exercising the right of reply, the representative of Syria responded to France, reminding the Committee, that his country is called the Syrian Arab Republic and that they should not use the word regime.  Underlining his French colleague’s hypocrisy in calling out human rights abuses in his country, he recalled that France has supplied Jihadis and Islamic militants with weapons for the past decade and that the French cement company Lafarge just pled guilty to conspiracy to aid Al Qaida and ISIS in Syria.

Interactive Dialogues: Disabilities

GERARD QUINN, Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, presented his thematic report on the “Protection of the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of military operations” ( A/77/203 ).  He recalled that protection of persons with disabilities is not new but inscribed in the 1949 Geneva Convention — coined there as “sick and infirm”.  Highlighting problems in military operations, such as non-inclusive evacuation processes and indiscriminate use of ordinances with traumatizing effects, he said the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can make persons with disabilities visible in international humanitarian law by replacing a medical model of disability with a human–rights-based model.  Accumulated disadvantages faced by persons with disabilities ignored in the medical model will then be factored into account in both doctrine and practice, he said.

Affirming that the report can be seen as an extension of Security Council resolution 2475 on “Protection of persons with disabilities in armed conflict”, he lauded his agency’s close collaboration with ICRC, the International Disability Alliance and the Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre in convening meetings and uniting military authorities with organizations of persons with disabilities.  The aim of the report is not to imagine a more inclusive form of warfare, but to reduce lethality and address the plight of civilians with disabilities who are neglected in the field.  He alluded to the next thematic report, which will focus on the moral agency of persons with disabilities and their voice in peacebuilding processes.  “Ultimately, societies torn apart by conflict have to be mended, and persons with disabilities have unique insights to offer in building more inclusive and sustainable societies to the benefit of all,” he said.

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, the representative of Israel said his country’s Home Front Command of the Israeli Defence Force has a special branch to assist evacuation of persons with disabilities when rockets are launched into the country.  There is a designated application for hearing-impaired persons, and information services also exist by text message.  He asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the resumption of services for people with disabilities during conflict.

The representative of the United States highlighted work on disabilities through the United States Agency for International Development, asking how lessons learned can apply to planning and response processes for humanitarian crises.

The representative of Qatar said his country offers support to persons with disabilities through pedagogical programmes and its work with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).  Providing funding for a hospital in Gaza has restored hope by providing artificial limbs to victims, he said.  He called on all parties to protect civilians in armed conflict in accordance with obligations to international human rights law.

Meanwhile, the representative of the Russian Federation criticized the Special Rapporteur’s work as inefficient, adding that while persons with disabilities certainly face difficulty in life, there is no reason to devote three detailed reports to the issue.  He also said that Mr. Quinn made an inappropriate link between his mandate and humanitarian protocols during war, suggesting that he stick to his mandate.

The representative of Hungary said her country has opened its borders to all those fleeing the ongoing war in Ukraine, including those with disabilities.  Adding that the Government has provided access to health care and services to persons with disabilities, she highlighted the actions of the Hungarian Association of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, which provides deaf and hard of hearing refugees directions at their entry into the country, as well as shelter in their headquarters.  Further, due to the advances of Hungary’s deinstitutionalization process for persons with disabilities and children without parental care, former institutions were quickly converted to house refugees.

The representative of China noted that her country has 85 million persons with disabilities, adding that their rights and interests have been guaranteed through total implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and a corresponding 90‑plus pieces of legislation.  To integrate women with disabilities into the economic sphere, they are provided with training workshops.  Further, China hosted the 2022 Paralympics.

The representative for ICRC said the thematic report outlines many meetings of persons with disabilities discussing death and injury from lack of access to shelters and exclusion.  He underscored that international humanitarian law is more than just a theory and called on States to incorporate recommendations into their military manuals and develop communication pathways with persons with disabilities to better include their perspectives.

Also speaking in the dialogue were representatives of Mexico, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Finland, Belarus, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Ireland, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the  European Union, in its capacity as observer.

ROSEMARY KAYESS, Chair of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, highlighted collaboration between her Committee and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which resulted in adoption of a joint statement on the rights of children with disabilities.  She also referred to a joint statement with the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, which calls for immediate and longer-term action to respond to situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies.  She added that the Committee has also undertaken a series of meetings with relevant States parties to receive specific information on the impact of the war in Ukraine on persons with disabilities.  She noted that there are currently 185 States parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and 100 to the Optional Protocol.

She added that the Committee has maintained the same level of resources as in 2014 despite a 30 per cent increase in States party reviews and a 50 per cent increase in backlog.  Stressing that the provision of reasonable accommodation is not developed within the United Nations system, she added that the Committee is still constrained by protocols and decisions that have resulted in a lack of consistent, accessible meeting spaces and limited provision of accessible information and communications.  This has impacted both treaty body members and the Committee’s engagement with people with disabilities, she said, adding that this will be exacerbated at the end of this year when the business continuity rule expires.  She called on States to commit to treaty body strengthening through the predictable schedule of reviews, harmonization of working methods and digital uplift.  Reasonable accommodation allowing experts with disabilities to participate on an equal basis with others will form an integral part of aligned working methods and of the digital uplift, she emphasized.  Noting that these measures require sustainable financing for the treaty body system and all human rights mechanisms, she urged States to fulfil the resource requirements of these organs.

The representative of the European Union underscored his bloc’s actions to fight discrimination against persons with disabilities and ensure their participation.  He asked how States and United Nations bodies can improve their engagement and dialogue with civil society to incorporate all voices, including those of persons with disabilities.

The representative of Mexico asked about good practices on the deinstitutionalization of persons with disabilities, including in emergency situations.  Noting her country’s actions and tools to guarantee persons with disabilities equal opportunities, she acknowledged the re-election of Mexican expert Dr. Amalia Gamio as a member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The representative of Japan , noting work to remove social barriers in  realizing an inclusive society, asked how the Chair considers the role of the Committee in strengthening its cooperation with States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  The representative of Iceland pointed to amendments to her country’s legislation to implement the Convention and the ongoing elaboration of a national plan to safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities.  Underscoring that the members of the Committee have a key role in ensuring that the rights of persons with disabilities are taken into consideration when finding human rights solutions to new challenges, she asked where the widest high-protection gap is when countering these challenges.

The representative of Mali , citing efforts for the inclusion and social development of persons with disabilities, stressed actions to promote educational support for them, including through free assistance devices and other solidarity means.  She affirmed that supporting people with disabilities should be subject to a coherent and global approach in times of peace and war, which, she said, applies to persons with disabilities from all backgrounds.  Addressing the use of new technology, she asked what means are available for persons with disabilities.

The representative of Belarus , noting that paralympic athletes from Belarus and the Russian Federation were banned in March 2022 from participating in the Winter Olympics, said her country saw no related comments from specialized international organizations.  Affirming that the experts of the Committee have not given due consideration to the issue, she relayed her country’s impression that the Convention does not apply to people with disabilities from Belarus and Russia.  She urged the Committee to assess the discriminatory decision by the International Paralympic Committee and asked the personal opinion of the Rapporteur.

The representative of C ôte D’Ivoire , citing his country’s actions to promote the rights of persons with disabilities, underscored the challenges these people face, especially in developing countries, which is where more than 80 per cent of the world’s billion disabled persons live.  “For this category of persons, in addition to the socioeconomic barriers that they face, they also face a lack of materials adapted to their particular disability situations, especially sporting equipment,” he said.  He asked if the Committee has launched an initiative to make such materials available.  The representative of the Russian Federation , pointing out the one-sided approach of the Committee to assessing the situation in Ukraine, said that the reports and statements of the Committee don’t mention the personal responsibility of the Ukrainian authorities.  Affirming that many States of the West are involved in the conflict, he said the Committee has been silent about the crimes of the Kyiv regime against its own citizens, who have become disabled because of the so-called anti-terrorist operation in southeastern Ukraine.

Affirming that the Committee showed no concern about the victims of multiple incidents of shelling by Ukrainians, he called on it to address issues that fall under its mandate.  Responding, Ms. KAYESS noted that during the COVID‑19 pandemic, engaging persons with disabilities through digital platforms was very helpful to the Committee’s work.  Noting that inclusion of persons with disabilities in communities is key to their full development, she stressed that they experienced increased vulnerability in segregation and isolation  She added that it is critical to include persons with disabilities’ perspectives in response and recovery mechanisms in all planning processes.  The Committee has supported States on measures they can take to assist local development of affordable and effective aids and equipment for people with disabilities, including sports equipment for their right to sport and pleasure.  Also speaking were representatives of Malaysia, Portugal, Greece and Syria.  An observer for the Sovereign Order of Malta also spoke.

FABIAN SALVIOLI, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, underscoring the role of transitional justice in crises and violence, called for a victim-centred approach.  Transitional justice helps to reveal systemic issues such as inequality, discrimination, and impunity, while shedding light on abusive structures and people who benefit from them.  Moreover, transitional justice has the potential to uncover the roots of conflict and violence.  However, transitional justice on its own cannot bring about change, he cautioned, calling for other interventions in the area of peace to complement work on the ground.  The framework of the Sustainable Development Goals establishes links between justice, development, and security, he noted, stressing the importance of Goal 16 on the access to justice.

Presenting his report, he stressed the need to place victims at the heart of the justice process and recognize their experiences.  Citing recognition as a key driver of change, when connected with effective participation and redistribution, he turned to reparations, namely the potential to make a significant difference in the lives of victims.  To this end, he called for a comprehensive approach to reduce the negative effects of structural marginalization as well as exhaustive research of harms suffered by all victims.  He also stressed the need for youth-centred approaches, noting that preventive strategies must include the individual and collective experience of young people – key actors in prevention and psychosocial response.  Stressing the importance of preventing long-term violence, he underscored that the Sustainable Development Goals can only be met if victims of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law are not left behind.

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, the representative of the United States welcomed the report’s linking of transitional justice with the Sustainable Development Goals and its focus on evidence gathering.  The United States is committed to seeking accountability for the Russian Federation’s atrocities and human rights violations in Ukraine and is working closely with Ukraine on evidence gathering.  Turning to the High Representative, he inquired about his recommendations to establish an evidence-finding mechanism at the United Nations.

The representative of Argentina reflected on her country’s recent past and its road to truth, justice and reparations.  This work was not only grounded in fulfilling her country’s obligations, but also in political will to bring those responsible for the darkest pages in its history to justice.  Reparations need to go beyond economics and towards satisfaction, restitution, and the guarantee of non-reoccurrence.  She asked what the High Representative saw as exemplary cases of survivor reparations.

The representative of Switzerland underlined the important role that victims need to play in reparation processes.  She asked the High Representative what he would recommend to encourage victim participation in United Nations bodies in New York and Geneva.  Moreover, she shared her country’s contributions to the Human Rights Council resolution on conceptualizing transitional justice as a strategic tool in peace and sustainable development, focusing on women, youth, and mental health.

The representative of Croatia , associating with the European Union, underlined the importance of truth and victim-centred approaches in making post-conflict development more inclusive, equitable and peaceful.  Croatia has developed a comprehensive framework addressing sexual violence and other crimes in war, she said spotlighting the High Representative’s visit to Croatia last year.  She asked him how to better address youth engagement, besides through psychosocial support.

The representative of Belgium , associating with the European Union, raised concern about the growth of authoritarian regimes, whose favourite tools are exclusion, division and violence.  Intersectional forms of marginalization make access to justice even more difficult.  Underlining the importance of integrating victims, survivors and youth in policy decisions, he asked the High Representative if he could share good practices of youth-centred approaches and psychosocial support.

The representative of Colombia shared her country’s experiences, stating that, currently, victims are at the heart of its approach and are given a visibility that was not seen before.  Given that her country had many positive things to share as well as lessons learned, she asked how to improve experience-sharing between countries.

The representative of the Russian Federation said the link in the High Representative’s report between transitional justice and the Sustainable Development Goals seems artificial.  Moreover, he rejected the notion that there is an increased need for biased international organizations and politicized international judicial bodies, whose loose norms lead to interference in States’ internal affairs.  National justice should hold perpetrators to account, he said, adding that giving sexual minorities reparations baffles him.  The United States speculated about his country’s criminal responsibility, but that country has eluded responsibility for crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and is now participating in atrocities committed by the Kyiv regime.

The representative of the European Union , in its capacity as observer, said that, considering attempts to challenge the international system and polarize the world, collaborative and inclusive approaches to transitional justice are paramount.  In that vein, he asked the High Representative how to shift the thinking of parties in conflict towards human rights.

Responding first to the statement of the Russian Federation, Mr. SALVIOLI said he disagreed with the delegate’s assessment that the link between transitional justice and the Sustainable Development Goals is artificial.  If the Sustainable Development Goals, as the most important agenda of the United Nations, fail to consider victims of human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law, the international community will not achieve the Goals.

Various delegations have stressed that transitional justice should be comprehensive, he said.  He has been supporting this idea for many years, he added, emphasizing that five pillars must be supported — trust, memory, justice, reparation and the guarantee of non-reoccurrence.

Regarding the issue of impunity, he pointed to his report on accountability, human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law that he presented to the Human Rights Council last year.  The world has sufficient history in human rights law to make clear that impunity is not acceptable, including amnesty laws or pardoning perpetrators.

Responding to Argentina, he agreed that economic reparation was not enough and that psychosocial support was indispensable.  Following grave human rights violations, victims end up with disabilities.  That kind of support is part of what States need to provide.  Regarding intersectionality, he said that Colombia has done a good job of addressing forms of discrimination, suggesting that the representative of Argentina look at case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  Responding to the question on how to give a platform to victims, he said victims’ voices must be heard independently of who they are or who their perpetrators were.  These mechanisms should also include confidence-building and psychosocial support, including waiting until victims are ready to talk instead of forcing them to speak when mechanisms need to hear from them.

In addition, he voiced great concern regarding the increase in hate speech and inflammatory rhetoric, which can negatively affect youth.  Intergenerational work, considering what happened in the past and focusing on what is going on in the present, was indispensable, he said, naming Spain as a good example of this.  Lastly, he pointed to next year’s high-level forum on the Sustainable Development Goals as an opportunity to address transitional justice in that framework and exchange good practices.

Facebook Twitter Email Print LinkedIn

News • June 25, 2013

Transcript of Obama’s Speech on Climate Change

Georgetown University Washington, D.C.  June 25, 2013

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  (Applause.)  Thank you, Georgetown!  Thank you so much.  Everybody, please be seated.  And my first announcement today is that you should all take off your jackets.  (Laughter.)  I’m going to do the same.  (Applause.)  It’s not that sexy, now.  (Laughter.)

It is good to be back on campus, and it is a great privilege to speak from the steps of this historic hall that welcomed Presidents going back to George Washington. 

I want to thank your president, President DeGioia, who’s here today.   (Applause.)  I want to thank him for hosting us.  I want to thank the many members of my Cabinet and my administration.  I want to thank Leader Pelosi and the members of Congress who are here.  We are very grateful for their support. 

And I want to say thank you to the Hoyas in the house for having me back.  (Applause.)  It was important for me to speak directly to your generation, because the decisions that we make now and in the years ahead will have a profound impact on the world that all of you inherit. 

On Christmas Eve, 1968, the astronauts of Apollo 8 did a live broadcast from lunar orbit.  So Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders—the first humans to orbit the moon -– described what they saw, and they read Scripture from the Book of Genesis to the rest of us back here.  And later that night, they took a photo that would change the way we see and think about our world. 

RELATED CONTENT

The big story: Obama sets grand plan

The breakdown: Key features of plan

Response to speech: How it played

Watch the speech:  Youtube

Charting the course: Infographic

Details of climate plan: Slideshare

It was an image of Earth -– beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown mountains brushed with white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon.

And while the sight of our planet from space might seem routine today, imagine what it looked like to those of us seeing our home, our planet, for the first time.  Imagine what it looked like to children like me.  Even the astronauts were amazed.  “It makes you realize,” Lovell would say, “just what you have back there on Earth.” 

And around the same time we began exploring space, scientists were studying changes taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere.  Now, scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases into the air.  That wasn’t news. But in the late 1950s, the National Weather Service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, with the worry that rising levels might someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable.  And what they’ve found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically.

That science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.

The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years.  Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record—faster than most models had predicted it would.  These are facts.

Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change.  Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times.  But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet.  The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago—that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater. 

The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels.  Here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history.  Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record.  Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland.  Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot temperatures into the 90s.

And we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief.  In fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it—they’re busy dealing with it.  Firefighters are braving longer wildfire seasons, and states and federal governments have to figure out how to budget for that.  I had to sit on a meeting with the Department of Interior and Agriculture and some of the rest of my team just to figure out how we're going to pay for more and more expensive fire seasons. 

Farmers see crops wilted one year, washed away the next; and the higher food prices get passed on to you, the American consumer.  Mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for tourism—and then, families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it will mean for their drinking water.  Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief. 

So the question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science—of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements—has put all that to rest.  Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest.  They've acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.

So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.  And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren. 

As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.  (Applause.)

I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.  And that’s why, today, I'm announcing a new national climate action plan, and I'm here to enlist your generation's help in keeping the United States of America a leader—a global leader—in the fight against climate change.

This plan builds on progress that we've already made.  Last year, I took office—the year that I took office, my administration pledged to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from their 2005 levels by the end of this decade.  And we rolled up our sleeves and we got to work. We doubled the electricity we generated from wind and the sun.  We doubled the mileage our cars will get on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade.  (Applause.)

President Obama during his speech detailing his climate action plan for the U.S.

Here at Georgetown, I unveiled my strategy for a secure energy future.  And thanks to the ingenuity of our businesses, we're starting to produce much more of our own energy.  We're building the first nuclear power plants in more than three decades—in Georgia and South Carolina.  For the first time in 18 years, America is poised to produce more of our own oil than we buy from other nations.  And today, we produce more natural gas than anybody else.  So we're producing energy.  And these advances have grown our economy, they've created new jobs, they can't be shipped overseas—and, by the way, they've also helped drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years.  Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America.  (Applause.)

So it's a good start.  But the reason we're all here in the heat today is because we know we've got more to do.

In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that Republican and Democratic senators worked on together a few years ago.  And I still want to see that happen.  I'm willing to work with anyone to make that happen.

But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock.  It demands our attention now.  And this is my plan to meet it—a plan to cut carbon pollution; a plan to protect our country from the impacts of climate change; and a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate.  (Applause.)

This plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by changing the way we use energy—using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting less energy throughout our economy. 

Forty-three years ago, Congress passed a law called the Clean Air Act of 1970.  (Applause.)  It was a good law.  The reasoning behind it was simple:  New technology can protect our health by protecting the air we breathe from harmful pollution.  And that law passed the Senate unanimously.  Think about that—it passed the Senate unanimously.  It passed the House of Representatives 375 to 1.  I don’t know who the one guy was—I haven’t looked that up.  (Laughter.)  You can barely get that many votes to name a post office these days.  (Laughter.)

It was signed into law by a Republican President.  It was later strengthened by another Republican President.  This used to be a bipartisan issue. 

Six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by that same Clean Air Act.  (Applause.)  And they required the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, to determine whether they’re a threat to our health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA determined that they are a threat to both our health and our welfare in many different ways—from dirtier air to more common heat waves—and, therefore, subject to regulation. 

Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our power plants.  But here’s the thing:  Right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into our air.  None.  Zero.  We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free.  That’s not right, that’s not safe, and it needs to stop.  (Applause.) 

So today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of all Americans, I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.  (Applause.)

I’m also directing the EPA to develop these standards in an open and transparent way, to provide flexibility to different states with different needs, and build on the leadership that many states, and cities, and companies have already shown.  In fact, many power companies have already begun modernizing their plants, and creating new jobs in the process.  Others have shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead of dirtier fuel sources.

Nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based programs to reduce carbon pollution.  More than 25 have set energy efficiency targets.  More than 35 have set renewable energy targets.  Over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution.  So the idea of setting higher pollution standards for our power plants is not new.  It’s just time for Washington to catch up with the rest of the country.  And that's what we intend to do.  (Applause.) 

Now, what you’ll hear from the special interests and their allies in Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy, and basically end American free enterprise as we know it.  And the reason I know you'll hear those things is because that's what they said every time America sets clear rules and better standards for our air and our water and our children’s health.  And every time, they've been wrong. 

For example, in 1970, when we decided through the Clean Air Act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities—and, by the way, most young people here aren't old enough to remember what it was like, but when I was going to school in 1979-1980 in Los Angeles, there were days where folks couldn't go outside.  And the sunsets were spectacular because of all the pollution in the air.

But at the time when we passed the Clean Air Act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry.  Guess what—it didn’t happen.  Our air got cleaner. 

In 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer—I quote—“a quiet death.”  None of it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically. 

See, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity.  (Applause.)  These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can't or they won't do it.  They'll just kind of give up and quit.  But in America, we know that’s not true.  Look at our history.

When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn’t end the plastics industry or the oil industry.  American chemists came up with better substitutes.  When we phased out CFCs—the gases that were depleting the ozone layer—it didn’t kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant.  (Laughter.)  American workers and businesses figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much.

The fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn’t cripple automakers.  The American auto industry retooled, and today, our automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years—with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fuel-efficient cars for everybody to choose from.  (Applause.)

So the point is, if you look at our history, don’t bet against American industry.  Don’t bet against American workers.  Don’t tell folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our economy.  (Applause.)

The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technologies—we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.

Today, we use more clean energy –- more renewables and natural gas -– which is supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs.  We waste less energy, which saves you money at the pump and in your pocketbooks.  And guess what—our economy is 60 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago, while our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago.

So, obviously, we can figure this out.  It’s not an either/or; it’s a both/and.  We’ve got to look after our children; we have to look after our future; and we have to grow the economy and create jobs.  We can do all of that as long as we don’t fear the future; instead we seize it.  (Applause.) 

And, by the way, don’t take my word for it—recently, more than 500 businesses, including giants like GM and Nike, issued a Climate Declaration, calling action on climate change “one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century.”  Walmart is working to cut its carbon pollution by 20 percent and transition completely to renewable energy.  (Applause.)  Walmart deserves a cheer for that.  (Applause.)  But think about it.  Would the biggest company, the biggest retailer in America—would they really do that if it weren’t good for business, if it weren’t good for their shareholders?

A low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come.  And I want America to build that engine.  I want America to build that future—right here in the United States of America.  That’s our task.  (Applause.)

Now, one thing I want to make sure everybody understands—this does not mean that we’re going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels.  Our economy wouldn’t run very well if it did.  And transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time.  But when the doomsayers trot out the old warnings that these ambitions will somehow hurt our energy supply, just remind them that America produced more oil than we have in 15 years.  What is true is that we can’t just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face.  (Applause.)  That’s not possible.

I put forward in the past an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but our energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil.  And, by the way, it’s certainly got to be about more than just building one pipeline.  (Applause.)

Now, I know there’s been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf.  And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal.  That’s how it’s always been done.  But I do want to be clear:  Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest.  And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.  (Applause.)  The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.  It’s relevant. 

Now, even as we’re producing more domestic oil, we’re also producing more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth.  And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this:  We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.

Federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas.  And now, we'll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we're not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy.

The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs.  It's lowering many families' heat and power bills.  And it's the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future.

And that brings me to the second way that we're going to reduce carbon pollution—by using more clean energy.  Over the past four years, we've doubled the electricity that we generate from zero-carbon wind and solar power.  (Applause.)  And that means jobs—jobs manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes; jobs installing the solar panels that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago.

I know some Republicans in Washington dismiss these jobs, but those who do need to call home—because 75 percent of all wind energy in this country is generated in Republican districts. (Laughter.)  And that may explain why last year, Republican governors in Kansas and Oklahoma and Iowa—Iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses almost 25 percent of its electricity from the wind—helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers.  (Applause.)  Tens of thousands good jobs were on the line, and those jobs were worth the fight.

And countries like China and Germany are going all in in the race for clean energy.  I believe Americans build things better than anybody else.  I want America to win that race, but we can't win it if we're not in it.  (Applause.)

So the plan I'm announcing today will help us double again our energy from wind and sun.  Today, I'm directing the Interior Department to green light enough private, renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than 6 million homes by 2020.  (Applause.)

The Department of Defense—the biggest energy consumer in America—will install 3 gigawatts of renewable power on its bases, generating about the same amount of electricity each year as you'd get from burning 3 million tons of coal.  (Applause.) 

And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for Congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies, and invest in the clean-energy companies that will fuel our future.  (Applause.)

Now, the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy—in our cars, our homes, our businesses.  The fuel standards we set over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade, the cars and trucks we buy will go twice as far on a gallon of gas.  That means you’ll have to fill up half as often; we’ll all reduce carbon pollution.  And we built on that success by setting the first-ever standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses and vans.  And in the coming months, we’ll partner with truck makers to do it again for the next generation of vehicles. 

Meanwhile, the energy we use in our homes and our businesses and our factories, our schools, our hospitals—that’s responsible for about one-third of our greenhouse gases.  The good news is simple upgrades don’t just cut that pollution; they put people to work—manufacturing and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances.  And the savings show up in our electricity bills every month—forever.  That’s why we’ve set new energy standards for appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers.  And today, our businesses are building better ones that will also cut carbon pollution and cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars. 

That means, by the way, that our federal government also has to lead by example.   I’m proud that federal agencies have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent since I took office.  But we can do even better than that.  So today, I’m setting a new goal:  Your federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources within the next seven years.  We are going to set that goal.  (Applause.)

We’ll also encourage private capital to get off the sidelines and get into these energy-saving investments.  And by the end of the next decade, these combined efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will reduce carbon pollution by at least three billion tons.  That’s an amount equal to what our entire energy sector emits in nearly half a year.

So I know these standards don’t sound all that sexy, but think of it this way:  That’s the equivalent of planting 7.6 billion trees and letting them grow for 10 years—all while doing the dishes.  It is a great deal and we need to be doing it. (Applause.) 

So using less dirty energy, transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, wasting less energy through our economy is where we need to go.  And this plan will get us there faster.  But I want to be honest—this will not get us there overnight.  The hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now.  And even if we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come.  The seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science.  It's like tapping the brakes of a car before you come to a complete stop and then can shift into reverse.  It's going to take time for carbon emissions to stabilize.

So in the meantime, we're going to need to get prepared.  And that’s why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid.  States and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready.  Miami Beach is hardening its water supply against seeping saltwater.  We’re partnering with the state of Florida to restore Florida’s natural clean water delivery system—the Everglades.

The overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Texas voted to spend money on a new water development bank as a long-running drought cost jobs and forced a town to truck in water from the outside.

New York City is fortifying its 520 miles of coastline as an insurance policy against more frequent and costly storms.  And what we’ve learned from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters is that we’ve got to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure that can protect our homes and businesses, and withstand more powerful storms.  That means stronger seawalls, natural barriers, hardened power grids, hardened water systems, hardened fuel supplies.

So the budget I sent Congress includes funding to support communities that build these projects, and this plan directs federal agencies to make sure that any new project funded with taxpayer dollars is built to withstand increased flood risks. 

And we’ll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm barriers.  And we'll also open our climate data and NASA climate imagery to the public, to make sure that cities and states assess risk under different climate scenarios, so that we don’t waste money building structures that don’t withstand the next storm. 

So that's what my administration will do to support the work already underway across America, not only to cut carbon pollution, but also to protect ourselves from climate change.  But as I think everybody here understands, no nation can solve this challenge alone—not even one as powerful as ours.  And that’s why the final part of our plan calls on America to lead—lead international efforts to combat a changing climate.  (Applause.)

And make no mistake—the world still looks to America to lead.  When I spoke to young people in Turkey a few years ago, the first question I got wasn't about the challenges that part of the world faces.  It was about the climate challenge that we all face, and America's role in addressing it.  And it was a fair question, because as the world's largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter, as a country with unsurpassed ability to drive innovation and scientific breakthroughs, as the country that people around the world continue to look to in times of crisis, we've got a vital role to play.  We can't stand on the sidelines.  We've got a unique responsibility.  And the steps that I've outlined today prove that we're willing to meet that responsibility.

Though all America's carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon pollution rose to a record high.  That’s a problem.  Developing countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and air-conditioners of their own, just like us.  Can't blame them for that.  And when you have conversations with poor countries, they'll say, well, you went through these stages of development—why can't we? 

But what we also have to recognize is these same countries are also more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are.  They don’t just have as much to lose, they probably have more to lose.

Developing nations with some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge alongside us.  They're watching what we do, but we've got to make sure that they're stepping up to the plate as well.  We compete for business with them, but we also share a planet.  And we have to all shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we're going to suffer the consequences—together. 

So to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and to help them do it faster, we're going to partner with our private sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries that transition to natural gas.  We’ve mobilized billions of dollars in private capital for clean energy projects around the world.

Today, I'm calling for an end of public financing for new coal plants overseas—(applause)—unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there's no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity.  And I urge other countries to join this effort.

And I'm directing my administration to launch negotiations toward global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology, to help more countries skip past the dirty phase of development and join a global low-carbon economy.  They don’t have to repeat all the same mistakes that we made.  (Applause.) 

We've also intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging economies like India and Brazil, and China—the world’s largest emitter.  So, for example, earlier this month, President Xi of China and I reached an important agreement to jointly phase down our production and consumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons, and we intend to take more steps together in the months to come.  It will make a difference.  It’s a significant step in the reduction of carbon emissions.  (Applause.) 

And finally, my administration will redouble our efforts to engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution through concrete action.  (Applause.) 

Four years ago, in Copenhagen, every major country agreed, for the first time, to limit carbon pollution by 2020.  Two years ago, we decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries.

What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious—because that’s what the scale of the challenge demands.  We need an inclusive agreement -– because every country has to play its part.  And we need an agreement that’s flexible—because different nations have different needs.  And if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable future for your generation.

So that’s my plan.  (Applause.)  The actions I’ve announced today should send a strong signal to the world that America intends to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution.  We will continue to lead by the power of our example, because that’s what the United States of America has always done. 

I am convinced this is the fight America can, and will, lead in the 21st century.  And I’m convinced this is a fight that America must lead.  But it will require all of us to do our part. We’ll need scientists to design new fuels, and we’ll need farmers to grow new fuels.  We’ll need engineers to devise new technologies, and we’ll need businesses to make and sell those technologies.  We’ll need workers to operate assembly lines that hum with high-tech, zero-carbon components, but we’ll also need builders to hammer into place the foundations for a new clean energy era.

We’re going to need to give special care to people and communities that are unsettled by this transition—not just here in the United States but around the world.  And those of us in positions of responsibility, we’ll need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of posterity.  (Applause.)  Because you and your children, and your children’s children, will have to live with the consequences of our decisions.

As I said before, climate change has become a partisan issue, but it hasn’t always been.  It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans led the way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues.  Richard Nixon opened the EPA.  George H.W. Bush declared—first U.S. President to declare—“human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways.”  Someone who never shies away from a challenge, John McCain, introduced a market-based cap-and-trade bill to slow carbon pollution.

The woman that I’ve chosen to head up the EPA, Gina McCarthy, she’s worked—(applause)—she’s terrific.  Gina has worked for the EPA in my administration, but she’s also worked for five Republican governors.  She’s got a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common-sense solutions.  Unfortunately, she’s being held up in the Senate. She’s been held up for months, forced to jump through hoops no Cabinet nominee should ever have to –- not because she lacks qualifications, but because there are too many in the Republican Party right now who think that the Environmental Protection Agency has no business protecting our environment from carbon pollution.  The Senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay.  (Applause.) 

But more broadly, we’ve got to move beyond partisan politics on this issue.  I want to be clear—I am willing to work with anybody –- Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians, greens -– anybody—to combat this threat on behalf of our kids. I am open to all sorts of new ideas, maybe better ideas, to make sure that we deal with climate change in a way that promotes jobs and growth.

Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real.  (Applause.)  We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.  (Applause.)  Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.  And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.

Our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future. And they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers.  That’s what the American people expect.  That’s what they deserve. 

And someday, our children, and our children’s children, will look at us in the eye and they'll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world?  And I want to be able to say, yes, we did.  Don’t you want that?  (Applause.)

Americans are not a people who look backwards; we're a people who look forward.  We're not a people who fear what the future holds; we shape it. What we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up, and speak up, and compel us to do what this moment demands.

Understand this is not just a job for politicians.  So I'm going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends. Tell them what’s at stake. Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings.  Push back on misinformation.  Speak up for the facts.  Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future.  (Applause.)

Convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution.  Push your own communities to adopt smarter practices.  Invest.  Divest.  (Applause.)  Remind folks there's no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth.  And remind everyone who represents you at every level of government that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote.  Make yourself heard on this issue.  (Applause.) 

I understand the politics will be tough.  The challenge we must accept will not reward us with a clear moment of victory.  There’s no gathering army to defeat.  There's no peace treaty to sign.  When President Kennedy said we’d go to the moon within the decade, we knew we’d build a spaceship and we’d meet the goal.  Our progress here will be measured differently—in crises averted, in a planet preserved.  But can we imagine a more worthy goal?  For while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.

“It makes you realize,” that astronaut said all those years ago, “just what you have back there on Earth.”  And that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear—the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity —that’s what’s at stake.  That’s what we’re fighting for.  And if we remember that, I’m absolutely sure we'll succeed.

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.) 

Text of President Obama's speech is courtesy of the White House Office of the Press Secretary.

• Utility Menu

Turning Climate Crisis Stories Into Narrative of the Future, Changed but Still Beautiful

Writers Rebecca Solnit and Terry Tempest Williams offer new perspectives on how to remake the world

By Alvin Powell, The Harvard Gazette

Stories can drive action, but perhaps the most damaging climate change story we can tell is the tall tale that we can simply opt for the stability and safety of the status quo, writer and activist  Rebecca Solnit  said Wednesday evening at Harvard’s Memorial Church.

That’s because there is no status quo, as the effects of climate change are multiplying around us, Solnit said. And those changes are going to keep coming — and worsening — regardless of the path we take. The choice is between the uncertainty of a transition from fossil fuels that results in more manageable changes or to continue on the path we’re on, fostering what are likely to be more sweeping and dangerous disruptions.

Solnit, the author of 24 books, including the recently released anthology “Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility,” spoke as part of  Harvard Divinity School ’s  Climate Justice Week,  designed to promote thinking around climate justice and highlight the roles that religion and spirituality play in the conversation. The event, “Stories Are Cages, Stories Are Wings — So What Stories Do We Tell About Climate?,” featured Solnit in conversation with  Terry Tempest Williams , Divinity School writer-in-residence, as well as a poetry reading and a musical performance of Beethoven.

“Like the chassis of a car or the framing of a house or the skeleton of our own body, assumptions lurk under the stories we tell, giving them their structure or limiting the shapes they can take,” Solnit said. “And one of the biggest, wrongest ones that seems to shape — or misshape — the collective imagination is this idea that there’s an option not to change, and that change is just something we should aspire to or demand, that there’s some sort of stability we can choose instead of changing everything.”

Solnit, who spoke for about 30 minutes and took questions afterward, was described by Williams as “singular, original, defiant, and loving.” Through her work, which spans human rights, women’s rights, the environment, and climate change, Solnit is “building a constituency for change,” Williams said. That effort is continuing with her latest book, “Not Too Late,” which seeks to combat climate change despair and defeatism with stories of hope and change.

Another damaging idea, Williams said in her talk, is that we have to have a perfect solution before we act. People hold up the promise of energy generation by nuclear fusion — the clean source that powers the sun — or of carbon capture and sequestration technology, which will permit continued fossil fuel burning by stripping and storing carbon dioxide from emissions, as ideals that will cause much less disruption to the current energy system.

But Solnit cautioned against letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Instead of waiting for those technologies to mature, she said, we should take advantage of the solutions available now. There has been a revolution in renewable energy in recent decades, with efficiency climbing and prices dropping for solar and wind power to the extent that wind is supplanting coal in the Texas energy grid on the basis of price alone.

Addressing climate change, she said, may best be viewed not as merely achieving a goal, but rather as embarking on a process, one that will best get us where we’re going if we start now, using the tools we have at hand. That means embracing renewables and widespread electrification and then adjusting as we go, as newer, better tools become available.

No solution is perfect, however, including renewable energy sources, which have been criticized because of the mining practices employed in extracting chemicals important for battery production to store the energy. While a real problem, that doesn’t invalidate a strategy that still has significantly lower impact than fossil fuel extraction, Solnit said.

“We don’t know how to get there, but we know to take the next step and the next step,” Solnit said, quoting E.L. Doctorow’s description of writing as an apt analogy: “Writing is like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.”

A key element of the trip into our climate-changed future, Solnit said, is that it should be taken together. Those who resist change would like us to focus on ourselves, on our individual carbon footprints, despairing of achieving broader change.

But Solnit said the complexity of the world’s natural systems means climate change is, by its nature, a problem of networks and connectedness. Viewing climate change as a collective problem requiring cooperation, imagination, and creativity, she said, gives us the power to devise solutions that lift up those who are disadvantaged in the present, like the billions of global poor, living in places most likely to feel climate-related impacts.

Solnit invoked the Japanese art of  kintsugi  as an analogy for the future. Kintsugi repairs broken pottery not to its original functionality or appearance, but rather uses golden glue to highlight the breaks, enhance the beauty, and transform the piece into something different, but nonetheless valuable.

“I think that there’s a tendency to think that when something is broken, all it will ever be is shards,” Solnit said. “I’ve used it as a metaphor: Life will happen to you. You won’t be young forever. Sorrow will carve its pattern on our face. If you live, if you love, you will lose. But it can still be beautiful, still be strong, and go forward. The bowl can still hold something. The person can still find beauty, find meaning, have strength.”

Today, Solnit said, we don’t need stories of “the climate crisis” so much as we need stories of meeting the crisis, stories that reframe our view of the decades to come in a way similar to reassembling broken ceramics into something else, something perhaps more beautiful.

“I say to you we are making a new world and I believe it can be, in crucial ways, a better one,” Solnit said.

Filter by Type

• Faculty in the News (148) Apply Faculty in the News filter
• General (85) Apply General filter
• HUCE Headlines (10) Apply HUCE Headlines filter

Research Areas

• Architecture & Environmental Design (14) Apply Architecture & Environmental Design filter
• Arts & Humanities (27) Apply Arts & Humanities filter
• Business, Law & Policy (80) Apply Business, Law & Policy filter
• Ecology & Biodiversity (60) Apply Ecology & Biodiversity filter
• Climate Change (106) Apply Climate Change filter
• Energy (42) Apply Energy filter
• Human Health (41) Apply Human Health filter
• Social Sciences (26) Apply Social Sciences filter
• Faculty of Arts and Sciences (67) Apply Faculty of Arts and Sciences filter
• Harvard Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (53) Apply Harvard Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences filter
• Harvard Kennedy School (37) Apply Harvard Kennedy School filter
• Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (25) Apply Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health filter
• Harvard Law School (20) Apply Harvard Law School filter
• Harvard Business School (17) Apply Harvard Business School filter
• Graduate School of Design (12) Apply Graduate School of Design filter
• University-Wide (11) Apply University-Wide filter
• Harvard Medical School (9) Apply Harvard Medical School filter
• Harvard Divinity School (6) Apply Harvard Divinity School filter
• Harvard Extension School (5) Apply Harvard Extension School filter
• Harvard Graduate School of Education (5) Apply Harvard Graduate School of Education filter
• Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study (1) Apply Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study filter

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Climate Change Speech/Global Warming Speech

Download Long and Short Climate Change Speech Essay in English Free PDF from Vedantu

Earth is the only planet which has variety in weather and climate crucial for survival.  But we humans are killing nature to fulfil our need and greed that causes global warming, eventually leading to climate change. Here, we have provided both long and short Climate Change speech or Global Warming speech along with 10 lines for a brief speech on Global Warming. Students can refer to this article whenever they are supposed to write a speech on Global Warming. 

Long Global Warming Speech

Global Warming refers to the Earth's warming, i.e. rise in the Earth's surface temperature. A variety of human activities, such as industrial pollution and the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for this temperature rise. These operations emit gases that cause the greenhouse effect and, subsequently, global warming. Climate change, starvation, droughts, depletion of biodiversity, etc. are some of the most important consequences of global warming.

The average surface temperature of the planet has risen by around 0.8 ° Celsius since 1880. The rate of warming per decade has been around 0.15 °-0.2 ° Celsius. This is a worldwide shift in the temperature of the planet and should not be confused with the local changes we witness every day, day and night, summer and winter, etc.

There can be several causes for Global Warming, the GreenHouse Effect is believed to be the primary and major cause. This impact is caused primarily by gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbon, nitrous oxides, etc. In the atmosphere around the Earth, these gases form a cover from which the Sun's hot rays can penetrate the Earth but can not leave. So, in the lower circle of the Earth, the heat of the Sun persists, allowing the temperature to increase.

This is not something new, it is not something we weren’t aware of before. Since childhood, each one of us present here has been made to write a speech on Global Warming in their school/college, at least once. We have been made aware of the disastrous effects through movies, articles, competitions, posters, etc. But what have we done? Recently, the Greta Thunberg's Climate Change speech was making headlines. Greta Thunberg is a 16-year-old teenager who got the chance to speak at the United Nations Climate Action Summit. Although, most of us were quick to term Greta Thunberg Climate Change speech as ‘Scathing’ but very few could point out the need for such a brutal reminder. Remember? “We have been made to write a speech on Global Warming since our school days and nothing changed”. Maybe a searing reminder would bring a change and yes, it sure did.

Now, we have the titanic fame, Leonardo DiCaprio, speaking up about climate change in his Oscar speech as well as at the UN. However, Leonardo Dicaprio's Climate Change speech makes us aware of the fact that this has grown beyond individual choices. If we have to fight climate change, industries and corporations have to take decisive large-scale action.

I would like to end my speech by saying that only spreading awareness isn't the answer. It's time to act, as actions yield results.

Short Speech on Global Warming

Today, I am here to deliver a short speech on Global Warming. We all are well aware of Global Warming and how it results in Climate Change. Owing to global warming, there have been cases of severe drought. Regions, where there used to be a lot of rainfall, are seeing less rainfall. The monsoon trend has shifted around the globe. Global warming also causes ice to melt and the level of the ocean to rise, resulting in floods.

Various species are also widely impacted by global warming. Some land organisms are very vulnerable to changes in temperature and environment and can not tolerate extreme conditions. Koalas, for example, are at risk of famine because of climate change. Several fish and tortoise species are susceptible to changes in ocean temperatures and die.

One of the biggest threats to global security is climate change. Climate change knows no borders and poses us all with an existential threat. A significant security consequence of climate change is a rise in the frequency of severe weather events, especially floods and storms. This has an effect on city and town facilities, access to drinking water, and other services to sustain everyday life. It also displaces the population and since 2008, disasters caused by natural hazards have displaced an average of 26.4 million people annually from their homes. 85% of these are weather-related. This is equal to every second of approximately one person displaced.

It is important that we finally stop debating about it. Schools need to stop making students write a speech on Global Warming or Climate Change and focus on making them capable of living a sustainable life. Face it with courage and honesty. 

10 Lines for Brief Speech on Global Warming

Here, we have provided 10 key pointers for Climate Change Speech for Students.

Global warming refers to the above-average temperature increase on Earth.

The primary cause of global warming is the Greenhouse effect.

Climate change is blamed for global warming, as it badly affects the environment.

The most critical and very important issue that no one can overlook is climate change; it is also spreading its leg in India.

India's average temperature has risen to 1.1 degrees Celsius in recent years.

Living creatures come out of their natural environment due to global warming, and eventually become extinct.

Climate change has contributed to weather pattern disruptions across the globe and has led to unusual shifts in the monsoon.

Human actions, apart from natural forces, have also led to this transition. Global warming leads to drastic climate change, leading to flooding, droughts and other climate catastrophes.

The pattern of monsoon winds is influenced by changes in global temperature and alters the time and intensity of rain. Unpredictable climate change impacts the nation's farming and production.

Planting more trees can be a positive step in eliminating the global warming problem.

What is Climate Change?

Climate change refers to alterations in Earth's climate, it has been happening since the planet was formed. The Climate is always changing. There are different factors that could contribute to Climate Change, including natural events and human activities.

Factors that cause Climate Change

The sun’s energy output

Volcanic eruptions

Earth’s orbit around the sun

Ocean currents

Land-use changes

Greenhouse gasses emissions from human activity

The most significant factor that contributes to Climate Change is greenhouse gasses emissions from human activity. These gasses form a “blanket” around Earth that traps energy from the sun. This trapped energy makes Earth warm and disturbs the Earth’s climate.

The Impact of Climate Change

Climate change is already happening. It is causing more extreme weather conditions, such as floods and droughts.

Climate change could lead to a loss of biodiversity, as plants and animals are unable to adapt to the changing climate.

Climate change could also cause humanitarian crises, as people are forced to migrate because of extreme weather conditions.

Climate change could damage economies, as businesses and industries have to cope with increased energy costs and disrupted supply chains.

Here are some Tips on How to write a Speech on Climate Change:

Start by doing your research. Climate change is a complex topic, and there's a lot of information out there on it. Make sure you understand the basics of climate change before you start writing your speech.

Write down what you want to say. It can be helpful to draft an outline of your speech before you start writing it in full. This will help ensure that your points are clear and organized.

Be passionate about the topic. Climate change is a serious issue, but that doesn't mean you can't talk about it with passion and enthusiasm. Let your audience know how important you think this issue is.

Make it personal. Climate change isn't just a political or scientific issue - it's something that affects each and every one of us. Talk about how climate change has affected you or your loved ones, and let your audience know why this issue matters to you.

Use visuals to help explain your points. A good speech on climate change can be filled with charts, graphs, and statistics. But don't forget to also use powerful images and stories to help illustrate your points.

Stay positive. Climate change can be a depressing topic, but try not to end your speech on a negative note. Instead, talk about the steps we can take to address climate change and the positive outcomes that could come from it.

Start by defining what climate change is. Climate change is a problem that refers to a broad array of environmental degradation caused by human activities, including the emission of greenhouse gasses.

Talk about the effects of climate change. Climate change has been linked to increased wildfires, more extreme weather events, coastal flooding, and reduced crop yields, among other things.

Offer solutions to climate change. Some solutions include reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, investing in renewable energy sources, and planting trees to help absorb carbon dioxide.

Appeal to your audience’s emotions. Climate change is a problem that affects everyone, and it’s important to get people emotionally invested in the issue.

Make sure your speech is well-organized and easy to follow. Climate change can be a complex topic, so make sure your speech is clear and concise.

FAQs on Climate Change Speech/Global Warming Speech

1. What should be the main focus of my speech? Can I use statistics in my speech?

The main focus of your speech should be on the effects of climate change and the solutions we can enact to address it. However, you can also talk about your personal connection to the issue or how climate change has affected your community. Yes, you can use statistics to support your points, but don’t forget to also use images and stories to help illustrate your points.

2. How much should I talk about the potential solutions to climate change?

You should spend roughly equal time discussing both the effects of climate change and potential solutions. Climate change is a complex issue, and it’s important to provide your audience with both the facts and potential solutions.

3. Can I talk about how climate change has personally affected me in my speech?

Yes, you can talk about how climate change has personally affected you or your loved ones. Climate change is a serious issue that affects everyone, so it’s important to get people emotionally invested in the issue.

4. Are there any other things I should keep in mind while preparing my speech?

Yes, make sure your speech is well-organized and easy to follow. Climate change can be a complex topic, so make sure your speech is clear and concise. Also, remember to appeal to your audience’s emotions and stay positive. Climate change can be a depressing topic, but try not to end your speech on a negative note. Instead, talk about the steps we can take to address climate change and the positive outcomes that could come from it.

5. Where can I find more information about preparing a speech on climate change?

The best place to start is by reading some of the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). You can also find helpful resources on the websites of Climate Reality Project or Greenpeace.

6. How long should my speech be?

Your speech should be between 5 and 7 minutes in length. Any longer than that, and your audience will start to lose interest. Climate change can be a complex issue, so it’s important to keep your points brief and concise. If you need help organizing your speech, consider using the following outline:

Define what climate change is;

Talk about the effects of climate change;

Offer solutions to climate change;

Appeal to your audience’s emotions.

7. How can I download reading material from Vedantu?

Accessing material from Vedantu is extremely easy and student-friendly. Students have to simply visit the website of  Vedantu and create an account. Once you have created the account you can simply explore the subjects and chapters that you are looking for. Click on the download button available on the website on Vedantu to download the reading material in PDF format. You can also access all the resources by downloading the Vedantu app from the play store.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Remarks by President   Biden on Actions to Address the Climate   Crisis

South Court Auditorium Eisenhower Executive Office Building

   10:40 A.M. EST   THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Appreciate it.    Well, I told Ritika: When she’s president, don’t forget me.  (Laughter.)    Ritika, thank you for that introduction and your beautiful artwork.  You all see the artwork?  Can you see it up here?  It’s on the right side; I don’t know if they can see it.     And thank you to all of you — to the climate scientists and experts who are here today and all across the country who have contributed to this critical endeavor.     I particularly want to thank Allison Crimmins — you know, who put together the team to write this report and — we’re releasing today.  It was an easy thing to do.  Not much to it.  (Laughter.)  Only about 700 people you had to get in line.   Well, more than 30 years ago, Congress passed a law that called for a detailed scientific report on the impacts of global changes in the environment.    Since then, these assessments delivered to Congress and the President have been the go-to resource in America for information on climate change and for developing climate solutions.     Today — today, I’m proud to announce that my administration just released the Fifth Climate Assessment in our nation’s history.    It didn’t just come out of thin air.  Written over four years, 750 authors and experts, thousands — thousands of American contributors from every single state in the nation as well as several territories and Tribes.     It’s the most comprehensive assessment on [the] state [of] climate change in the history of America.  And it matters.    This assessment shows us in clear scientific terms that climate change is impacting all regions, all sectors of the United States — not just some, all.    It shows that communities across America are taking more action than ever to reduce climate risks and warns that more action is still badly needed.    We can’t be complacent.  Let me say that again: We can’t be complacent.  We have to keep going.    Above all, it shows us that climate action offers an opportunity for the nation to come together and do some really big things.    You know, I’ve seen firsthand what the reports made clear: the devastating toll of climate change and its existential threat to all of us.  And it is the ultimate threat to humanity: climate change.   I’ve walked the streets of Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Puerto Rico — where historic hurricanes and floods wiped out homes, hospitals, houses of worship — just wiped them right off the map.   I’ve met with families in Texas, Kentucky, Mississippi, where catastrophic winter storms and tornadoes devoured everything in their path — schools, businesses, police stations, a fire house.   I’ve seen firefighters in Idaho, Maui, and New Mexico, California, Colorado, where wildfires destroyed whole neighborhoods and sacred Tribal sites, spreading smoky haze thousands of miles and forcing millions of Americans to shelter indoors in unsafe air to breathe.    Look — and, by the way — and I’ve flown over all these areas in helicopters.  They tell me that more of our forest land has — forest has burned to the ground than make up the entire state of New Jersey.  The entire state.  Some say Maryland, New Jersey — but the (inaudible) is it’s — that’s just gigantic and has incredible impacts.   Record temperatures in Texas, Arizona, and elsewhere are affecting the lives and livelihoods of more than 100 million Americans.    And this summer and this fall have been the Earth’s hottest since global records began to be kept in the 1800s.  Think about that: the hottest we’ve ever recorded in history.     It’s an impact — an impact that decades are making because inaction — there was inaction for much too long.   Look — but we’re acting now, and we have been acting.  We’ve come to the point where it’s foolish for anyone to deny the impacts of climate change anymore.    But it’s simply a simple fact that there are a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle — MAGA Republican leaders — who still deny climate change, still deny that it’s a problem.   My predecessor and much of the MAGA Republican Party, in fact, are — feel very strongly about that.   Anyone who willfully denies the impact of climate change is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future.    The impacts we’re seeing are only going to get worse, more frequent, more ferocious, and more costly.    Last year alone, natural disasters in America caused $178 billion — $178 billion in damages.  They hit everyone, no matter where — what their circumstances, but they hit the most vulnerable the hardest: seniors; people with disabilities; people experiencing homelessness who have nowhere to turn; Black, brown, and Tribal communities; territories that are most exposed and le- — have the least resource — fewest resources.    But, folks, none of this is inevitable.  None of it’s inevitable.   From day one, my administration has taken unprecedented climate action.  We’re working with everyone from mayors to county officials to entrepreneurs to academics; business leaders, labor leaders, Tribal leaders.  We’re focused in all parts of America: cities, suburbs, small towns, and rural communities and Tribal Nations.   And here’s how.  We’re using a law I got passed when I first came to office called the American Rescue Plan to help states and cities become more resilient to climate change, promoting energy efficiency by weatherizing homes, reducing flooding by building infrastructure to handle storm surges, opening cooling centers impacted — centers where there’s particular great heat impact and people need a shelter.   Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which I signed two years ago — the most significant investment in our nation’s infrastructure in American history: roads, bridges, ports, airports, high-speed Internet.  It delivers clean water to your community, lowers your energy bills, upgrades your electric grid so you don’t have to power them — so you don’t have to lose power, I should say, when storms and heatwaves hit.    The CHIPS and Science Act I signed last year — (coughs) excuse me — I signed last year — excuse me — (coughs) — I signed last year positions us to lead in semiconductor manufacturing and innovation, which is critical to clean energy development and deployment.   Semiconductors are those small, little computer chips you all know, the size of the tip of your little finger, that power everything in our lives, from smart phones to appliances.  We invented those chips.  We invented them.  And we’re — other countries started making them, and we weren’t.    Not anymore.  We’re making these chips here in America.    And my Inflation Reduction Act is the most significant climate investment ever anywhere in the world.    Among many things it does, it offers tax credits to make your home more energy efficient; upgrading windows and doors to keep drafts out and heat in; tax credits to installing electric heat pumps and solar panels on your roof, saving hundreds of dollars in your family bills; tax credits to buy electric vehicles as we build the electric vehicle future here in America.   We’re transforming clean energy development that’s  threatening  [creating] good-paying jobs, including union jobs, in all of America.    We’ve already attracted over half a tri- — we’ve attracted half a trillion dollars — a half of trillion dollars in private sector investment for my Investing in America agenda in clean energy and advanced manufacturing.    We’re just getting — and we’re just getting started.  And we really are.  We’re just getting started.   All told, my Investing in America Agenda and those bold climate laws are the most au- — ambitious in American history.    Today’s release, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, is a critical part of that effort.  It lays out the threats and dangers, but most experts would acknowledge it also shows solutions are within reach.  Solutions are within reach.     It takes time for the investments we’re making to be fully materialized.  But we just have to keep at it.  We need to do more and move faster, and we have the tools to do it.   And for the first time ever, we’re also releasing the report with new — with a new online tool — that I just was shown a moment ago in the other room — so everyone can explore exactly what’s happening in their state, their city, and their county by going online to WhiteHouse.gov/NCA.  WhiteHouse.gov/NCA    That’s very different from the previous administration that tried to bury this report.  They didn’t even want to make sure this — this report even came to light.  We’re sharing it on — we’re — and we’re — we’re — we’re sharing this report in detail with the American people so they know exactly what they’re facing and what we’re going to have to do.   But that’s not all.  Along with this assessment, I’m announcing $6 billion in new investments from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to make communities across the country more resilient to climate change.  This funding will be administered by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.    And it’s going to be focused on key climate goals, including modernizing our aging electric grid to withstand extreme weather, which is causing fi- — the — these forest fires.  When those towers come down and the lines snap, they catch fire.  The forest catches fire.    They cost a lot more money to bury those underground and do other things, but we have to do it.  And it’s causing significant outages as well.   Reducing flood risks to communities.  Improving drought resilience.    Supporting conservation for our national parks.  I’ve already been able to conserve 21 million acres of our most precious and sacred lands and waters just — just thus far — just in the first two and a half years.   And advancing environmental justice for disadvantaged communities, because they’re the ones always left behind.      Let me close with this.  Last week, I stopped by the “White House Demo Day” to meet with the scientists and experts overseeing groundbreaking and cutting-edge science and technology that my administration is funding right now, right here in America.  It was truly inspirational hearing from experts from all across the government, the private sector, and academia touching on so many fields.    I saw a prosthetic arm that can sense touch, and it’s controlled by one’s thoughts.  A prosthetic arm.  It’s just like your hand.  You think you want to move your finger — well, it worked out you think — he wants to move his hand, it can do it.  It’s — it’s an incredible breakthrough.    Electric heat pumps to help old homes transition to clean energy homes of the future.  Robots for ocean exploration that survey marine life along unmapped seafloors where barely any light penetrates.  And so much more.    It was a reminder, at least for me, of what I’ve long believed — that America can be defined by a single word.  I mean this sincerely.  The single that — I was asked by Xi Jinping years ago, when we were in the Tibetan Plateau, could I define America.  I said, “Yeah.  One word: possibilities.”  Possibilities.     In this administration, America will be the place where great science changes what’s possible.  That’s why I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future.    We just have to remember who we are.  We’re the United States of America, and there is nothing — nothing beyond our capacity if we work together.   May God bless you all.  And may God protect our troops.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.   Q    What are the possibilities in San Francisco, Mr. President?      Q    Sir, (inaudible) with your meeting with Xi tomorrow, sir?  And do you — what — how would you define success with your meeting with President Xi?   THE PRESIDENT:  To get back on a normal course of corresponding: being able to pick up the phone and talk to one another when there’s a crisis, being able to make sure our militaries still have contact with one another.    We can’t take — as I told you, we’re not trying to decouple from China, but we’re — what we’re trying to do is change the relationship for the better.  From my perspective, if in fact the Chinese people, who are in trouble right now economically — if the average homeowner or — the “homeowner” — if the average citizen in China was able to have a decent-paying job, that benefits them and it benefits all of us.  But I’m not going to continue to sustain the support for positions where if you want to invest in China, we have to turn over all our trade secrets.    Thank you.   (Cross-talk.)   THE PRESIDENT:  (Addressing the participants onstage.)  Ready?   Q    Mr. President, can you address the hostages directly and give them a message of hope and resilience in these troubling times?   THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I can.  I’ve been talking with the — people involved every single day.  I believe it’s going to happen, but I don’t want to get into any detail.   Q    What’s your message for the families?   THE PRESIDENT:  Hang in there.  We’re coming.   Q    Will you sign the CR?    Q    Mr. President, there is a report out this morning that Israel and Hamas are close to a deal for the release of 70 of the hostages.  Is there anything you can add to that?    THE PRESIDENT:  No.    Thank you.    10:55 A.M. EST

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Fabian Society

The future of the left since 1884.

• MEMBERS AREA
• Press & Media

Five of the best environment speeches

For those who attended this week's Green Growth conference at the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) a rare treat was on offer. Among the useful and insightful presentations by scientists explaining the latest data trends was an inspirational speech given by John...

• Date 24 October 2013

For those who attended this week’s  Green Growth conference at the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) a rare treat was on offer. Among the useful and insightful presentations by scientists explaining the latest data trends was an inspirational speech given by John Ashton, a former diplomat who until last year was the special representative for climate change at the foreign office.

Ashton made one of the best environment speeches I’ve ever heard. He didn’t mention climate change till about the 75 th paragraph. The ability to situate our environmental challenge in a wider debate about the kind of society and economy we want is one of the most effective things an environmental speech can do. With that in mind I reflected on some of the other great speeches I’ve heard on green issues. So, in chronological order:

1. Al Gore, 2006

The obvious but still worth mentioning one is Al Gore’s speech immortalised in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (2006). It may be quite dated now but it’s not often that footage of a politician giving a power point presentation is made into a movie This was the speech that first alerted me to the importance of the environmental crisis facing the planet.

2. Ed Miliband, 2009

While I was still studying my postgraduate degree in 2009 I remember hearing this speech on the LSE podcast service. The speech was about the politics of climate change but featured a coherent argument in favour of what then was referred to as ‘the politics of the common good’ but what we now call ‘one nation labour’. It’s powerful to read it now and recognise the coherence of the Miliband project even then.

It’s worth noting that what the speech says about energy bills is consistent with the debate we’re currently having in the context of the price freeze. On the one hand Miliband states that prices will rise but the speech is clear that this means that the market will have to function as fairly as possible. This is a useful reminder that the price freeze policy has to be understood side by side with Labour’s plans for reforming the energy markets including a new regulator and splitting generation from supply.

3. Lord Deben, 2013

Earlier this year I was honoured to speak on the same platform as Lord Deben at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s climate justice conference . Lord Deben got up and talked about his maiden speech in the House of Lords. He said “I’m here to talk about the need to reduce poverty, fight climate change and the importance of Europe.”

It was a fine speech that challenged climate sceptics and argued that solving the environmental crisis requires a cross-party consensus. Lord Deben rarely speaks from pre-written speeches, but to get a flavour here’s an article he wrote for a Fabian collection on tackling climate change.

4. Ed Balls, 2013

This was a major speech because it was the first one in the 2010 parliament that demonstrated Labour really ‘got’ environmental issues. It was given to the Green Alliance annual reception and featured a host of green policy commitments including a 2030 energy sector decarbonisation target and a pledge to give the Green Investment Bank (GIB) power to borrow on the open market.

In the speech Ed Balls illustrated that under Labour the global race would be one fought on terms of cooperation with friends abroad, not just a competition to build more. This was an argument expanded by Ed Miliband at this year’s Labour conference. In the context of green issues it is absolutely right to argue that we cannot build as much as China but we can build it smarter. We can then export that kind of expertise.

5. John Ashton, 2013

Ashton’s speech began with a touching story about his family background and the injustices they faced in the time of his grandfather who was blacklisted during the great depression. The speech then describes in detail and with passion the myriad challenges facing the economy and politics. It is because the climate crisis cannot be separated from the wider cost of living crisis and the lack of faith in politics that Ashton’s speech is so resonant. It’s an argument he makes brilliantly and a throughline that features in of all the speeches I’ve set out above.

Those who see the environmental challenge in a silo misunderstand the basic truth: without the environment there can be no real economy or politics to speak of. Indeed, the top four news stories on the BBC yesterday at one point were a new nuclear power plant deal, forest fires in Australia, energy price increases and food waste from Tesco. All four deeply political and deeply environmental. Looking back at these speeches, who can really say green issues are marginal?

Fabian membership

Join the fabian society today and help shape the future of the left.

You’ll receive the quarterly Fabian Review and at least four reports or pamphlets each year sent to your door

Be a part of the debate at Fabian conferences and events and join one of our network of local Fabian societies

Be the first to know

Sign up to the free fabian society newsletter.

Find out about the latest Fabian Society research, publications and events with our regular updates

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information Accept

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Speech Writing /

Environment Conservation Speech: Class 5th to 10th

• Updated on  
• Nov 18, 2023

We all learned in Geography that about 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered with water. But did you know only 3% of this total water is fresh water and around 1% is drinkable? In recent years, there have been several global events, from COP Summits to regional Environmental Conservation conferences, where mitigation strategies are discussed to achieve sustainable development. Our father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi once said, ‘There is sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed .’ School students are active participants when it comes to saving the environment and promoting environmentally friendly practices. Below we have given samples for environment conservation speech for school students.

Table of Contents

• 1.1 Environment Conservation for Class 5th
• 1.2 Environment Conservation for Class 8th
• 1.3 Environment Conservation for Class 10th

Also Read: Speech Writing, Format, Samples, Examples

Environment Conservation Speech for School Students

The natural environment has always faced the burden of harmful human activities. The burning of fossil fuels for energy, clearing of forest cover for agricultural activities, industrial activities, discharge of pollutants into the atmosphere, etc. have put a huge strain on the environment. Environment conservation is a global conservation effort and is divided into different types.

• Environmental Conservation
• Animal Conservation
• Marine Conservation
• Human Conservation

It is high time, we humans take full responsibility for our actions and take active measures towards environment conservation. Here are some short speeches on environmental conservation for school students.

Environment Conservation for Class 5th

Also read: Short and Long National Unity Day Speech in English

Environment Conservation for Class 8th

Environment conservation for class 10th.

Related Articles

Environmental Conservation Animal Conservation Marine Conservation Human Conservation

Here are some popular and effective environmental conservation measures: Practice the 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle); Save Water; Plant more and more trees; volunteer in community programs; educate yourself about the environment, etc.

Gandhi once said, ‘There is sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed.’ Later on, this became a popular quote.

For more information on such interesting topics for your school, visit our speech writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Speech on Environment for Students and Children

3 minutes speech on environment.

Good Morning to one and all present here. I am going to present a short speech on Environment. Our environment consists of all living beings as well as their surroundings. A healthy environment is one that is sustainable for a long period of time. It is the source of life for everyone. It directs the life of everyone and determines the proper growth and development.

The good or bad quality of our life is depending on the quality of our natural environment. Our need for food, water, shelter, and other things depends on the environment around us. There must be a balanced natural cycle that exists between the environment and the lives of human beings, plants, and animals.

Human society is playing a vital role in degenerating the natural environment which is affecting badly the lives on this planet. All the human actions in this modern world directly impact our ecosystem.  Many actions of us have brought big changes to this planet, resulting in many environmental problems. Increasing demand for technologies and industries is another important factor.

Get the Huge list of 100+ Speech Topics here

Various Environmental Issues

There are many harmful effects of human activities on the environment. Some of these are pollution, over-population, waste disposal, climate change, global warming, and the greenhouse effect, etc. The big reason that poses a serious threat to our environment is the harmful gases in the air.

The uncontrolled use of automobiles has increased their effects, which in turn emits harmful gases like Carbon monoxide. The electronic appliances like air conditioners and refrigerators also contaminating air by the discharge of harmful substances. The diverse effect of these gases is causing air pollution as well as global warming.

Read Speech on Global Warming here.

Deforestation is another major reason. The human population is increasing at a fast rate and therefore to meet their daily consumption we need to cut forests and trees. It may be for home or for fuel, but we are causing great loss to the environment.

Other factors are the depletion of natural resources like water, fuel, and food. On the other hand over-consumption of resources by humans and improper waste disposal have resulted in a huge quantity of solid and hazardous wastes. These wastes are other threats to the environment.

Solutions of the Problems of our Environment

Due to all the above human activities, our planet has reached unsustainable levels. Therefore, it is our duty and responsibility to lower the loss. Every individual can play a significant role in this solution.

For example, we should take a pledge to say ‘No’ to plastics. Instead of it, we may make use of Eco-friendly substitutes like paper and cloth bags.

The government of every country must implement strict laws for industries, those are releasing the toxic wastes for proper waste management. The awareness programs should be organized to encourage citizens to use public transport as much as possible.

Also, everyone must do plantation of trees. The less use of private vehicles will reduce the emission of harmful gases as well will save fuel resources.

In the end, I want to say that we must spread environmental awareness in our society as well as in our daily routine life. It is necessary to save and protect our environment. In my view, it is the responsibility of everyone to do our bit for the environment. Therefore, let us work together towards a greener and more sustainable future.

Read Essays for Students and Children here!

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Speech for Students

• Speech on India for Students and Children
• Speech on Mother for Students and Children
• Speech on Air Pollution for Students and Children
• Speech about Life for Students and Children
• Speech on Disaster Management for Students and Children
• Speech on Internet for Students and Children
• Speech on Generation Gap for Students and Children
• Speech on Indian Culture for Students and Children
• Speech on Sports for Students and Children
• Speech on Water for Students and Children

16 responses to “Speech on Water for Students and Children”

this was very helpful it saved my life i got this at the correct time very nice and helpful

This Helped Me With My Speech!!!

I can give it 100 stars for the speech it is amazing i love it.

Its amazing!!

Great !!!! It is an advanced definition and detail about Pollution. The word limit is also sufficient. It helped me a lot.

This is very good

Very helpful in my speech

Oh my god, this saved my life. You can just copy and paste it and change a few words. I would give this 4 out of 5 stars, because I had to research a few words. But my teacher didn’t know about this website, so amazing.

Tomorrow is my exam . This is Very helpfull

It’s really very helpful

yah it’s is very cool and helpful for me… a lot of 👍👍👍

Very much helpful and its well crafted and expressed. Thumb’s up!!!

wow so amazing it helped me that one of environment infact i was given a certificate

check it out travel and tourism voucher

thank you very much

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Speech on Environment for Students in simple and easy words

Table of Contents

Speech on Environment for Students: We have provided various speeches on the environment for the students. World Environment Day speech brings out the urgency and importance of collective action in safeguarding our planet, fostering a deeper understanding of environmental challenges and the need for sustainable solutions. All the environment speech is written using very simple and easy words. Speeches are written in various words according to the student’s needs and requirements. You can select any of the speeches given below according to the time limit of 3 mins, 5 mins, etc.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Long and Short Speech on Environment in English

Environment speech 1.

Good Morning Principal, Teachers, and My Dear Friends!

As of today, the whole school has been assembled here for this beautiful occasion of World Environment Day, which is celebrated on 5 th June every year; I would like to say a few words dedicated to the environment.

The environment is the surroundings made from five elements: Air, Water, Land, Sky, and Fire for us to flourish. It has always been said that only earth has the most favorable climatic conditions to help us survive. We should be very grateful to the earth that we have been provided with such a great environment with everything in its nature that helps us thrive. But day by day, we are ruining it on the highest pitch that will eventually lead us towards our destruction.

We should understand the importance of the natural environment, try to deduce our non-eco-friendly activities, and imperatively plant as many trees as possible and save water, which are the two biggest issues.

Thank you, and have a nice day!

Environment Speech 2

Hon’ble Principal, Teachers, and My Dear Friends!

As this special assembly has been called to address the biggest issue these days regarding our environment, I would like to express my views on it. The world has recognized that our environment is not as it was before. Drastic changes have occurred in a few years, such as climatic changes, increment in natural disasters, etc., all due to our changing lifestyle.

Our environment consists of 5 elements- Air, Water, Land, Fire, and Sky and we have disturbed the process of the entire ecosystem by cutting the vast amount of trees that contribute the most to balancing the environmental cycle, installment of large polluting industries, hunting/poaching of animals leading towards their endangerment, etc.

Out of this, the question arises what kind of future we want or what kind of future we will hand over to our next generations? Is this the kind of development we all have dreamt about? Walking with a mask on our faces, struggling in floods and earthquakes, destruction of animals who aren’t even aware of what’s happening.

Now, this is high time we need to recognize the importance of our natural environment and try every possible action towards saving it, from saving water to planting trees.

Environment Speech 3

Good morning to the Excellencies, my respected teachers, and my dear friends. The topic of my speech is Environment. The environment is the surrounding in which we live. It is the source of life. Our whole life is dependent on the environment. It directs our life and determines our proper growth and development.

The good or bad quality of social life depends on our natural environment. Human beings need food, water, shelter, and other things depending on their environment. A balanced natural cycle exists between the environment and the lives of humans, plants, and animals. Human society plays a vital role in degenerating the natural environment, negatively affecting this planet’s lives. All the human actions in this modern world directly impact the whole ecosystem.

All the actions have brought a big change to this planet, resulting in many environmental problems. The increasing demand for technologies and industries in modern times impacts nature. The growing invention for new technologies has changed the interaction of people with an environment, which permits more populations to grow.

Modern technologies have immense power and have altered the whole environment in an unimagined way. The indiscriminate use of the environment is the root of the ecological crisis. Such continuous increases in technologies and human behavior are correspondingly very serious. Such amazing technologies became the reason for economic growth in the 20 th century; however, they dramatically affected natural resources.

Environmental problems include rapid growth in world population, deteriorating natural resources, diminishing forests and wetlands, erosion of soil and coral reefs, depleting underground water, regular shortage of fresh drinking water, vanishing plants, and salinization in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Some other issues are loss of biodiversity, rapid extinction of some important animal species, collapse of fisheries, rising air and water pollution, rise in atmospheric temperature, thinning of ozone layer, spoiling rivers, seas and underground resources.

Even though science and technology have radically altered the terms of adaptation to the nature, we still need to adapt to the environment. Human society is embedded in an environment. We must not forget that the human being is first and foremost an animal, sharing living space with other animal species in an environment on which they are mutually dependent. It is our responsibility to save our environment and earth and make the possibility of healthy and happy life here.

Environment Speech 4

Good morning to the Excellencies, my respected teachers, and my dear friends. As we have gathered here to celebrate this occasion, I would like to speech over Environment. To run life in a healthy, happy way, we all need a healthy and natural environment. Continuously increasing the human population adversely affects the forests. Human beings are cutting forests to a great extent to make their home live securely; however, they do not think of the problems arising from the lack of forests.

It completely disturbs the natural cycle between the environment and life on the earth. Because of the over-population, the number of various chemical elements is increasing in the atmosphere which ultimately causes irregular rainfall and global warming. We cannot imagine the negative effects of global warming on the climate and the lives of human beings and other living species.

According to the research, it is found that the perennial snow mountains of Tibet were covered by thick snow in the past; however, those thick snows are getting very thin day by day over the last few decades because of global warming. Such a condition is a very dangerous situation and an indication of the end of life on earth, which needs to be taken very seriously by all countries worldwide. It is very true that climate change goes very slow; the however, slow continuous process is very dangerous.

Because of the regular changes in the environment physical structure of human beings and other living species has been changed from generation to generation. Increasing human population needs more land for agricultural cultivation and living purpose, which force them to cut more trees and forests, so deforestation has its dangerous side effects.

The increasing the level of industrialization has countless harmful effects on the atmosphere because of the poisonous chemical emissions and dangerous waste drainage in the big water resources such as the Yamuna, Ganga, and other rivers. The ever-changing (negatively) environment is not the issue of only some countries or government; it is the issue of whole human fraternity because we all are the reason of this negatively declining environment, so we all are responsible to save our natural environment for the healthy survival of life on the earth.

Protecting the atmosphere is a matter of high importance for all the present and future generations of mankind. The main purpose of my speech today over the environment is only to increase the public awareness among common people about the reasons of declining environment as well as need of healthy and natural environment for the life on earth. So, it is my humble request to all of you that you please contribute to saving your environment.

Environment Speech 5

Good morning to my respected teachers and my dear friends. As we have gathered here to celebrate this occasion, I would like to give a speech on the Environment to increase awareness among the public about the negatively changing environment. An environment is the natural surrounding which covers and protects us from the natural disasters.

However, our healthy and natural environment is getting worse daily and taking the form of demons affecting everything from non-living to living being we know is two types of environ: natural environment and built environment. The natural environment is one that exists naturally, and the one for which man is responsible such as cities etc., is called the built environment. There are many natural and unnatural factors polluting the whole natural atmosphere.

Some of the natural factors like volcanoes, floods, etc. are the reasons for the declining environment. However, manmade reasons are more rampant caused due to reckless and caustic human nature are highly responsible for the environmental pollution. Self centred human activities are highly responsible for the destruction of the environment. Other environmental threats like forest degradation, global warming, pollution, etc. are the reasons for environmental degradation. Continuous increasing temperature of the earth’s surface in the atmosphere because of the many human-made and natural means calls to the various natural calamities causing disturbance to a great extent to the healthy and common life of human and all other living beings.

Our natural environment has become hugely changed in the last few decades and has taken the form of a big and powerful demon affecting the lives of people every single moment. Nature has made everything to run in balance with the natural cycle however many factors causes environmental corrosion. The factors like population growth and economic advancement are considered as the major factors giving rise to many other secondary factors.

We must understand the importance of ecological balance and try our best to run it naturally to prevent the effects of environmental disasters and promote a a healthy environment. We should promote common public in our surroundings for a clean and green environment to prove the meaning of proverbs life “won’t have a society if we destroy the environment.”

Environment Speech 6

Hi all, I would like to say good morning to the Excellencies, respected teachers, and my dear friends. As we all know that we have gathered here to celebrate this auspicious occasion, I would like to speak over the environment of our continuously declining environment so that we all together can be successful in saving our environment by taking some effective steps. As we know that we live on the planet of the earth, having different types of surroundings called environments within which we can eat healthily, breathe freshly, and live safely.

However, what happens to our lives if any means of natural or manmade causes of environment degradation occurs? We cannot imagine the extent of loss to the human and other living beings’ existence. The ecology balance and natural cycles has become disturbed which is very hard to bring back and give it a natural shape. However, there is a common “saying that “prevention is better than cure,” so we never get tired of trying our best to save the environment.

The physical environment on this planet provides all of us a favorable required condition and supports the existence and growth of various forms of life The nature provides natural or physical environment however all forms of the living beings together constitute another environment called biological environment. Both environments are closely connected and make a unique natural system for the life survival. If the biological environment gets disturbed, the physical environment automatically gets disturbed, and both hugely affect human lives together.

Another environment that is completely dependent on human is the socio-cultural environment made by human beings. Whatever environment is, it must be healthy, safe and secure to continue the evergreen life on the earth in present and future.

We should realize our mistakes and concern about the environment in order to keep it clean, safe and secure for a healthy life. Many human activities like deforestation, industrialization, technological improvements, and so many others are leading our environment towards danger and keeping lives at risk by influencing the growth, development, and survival of all organisms.

Various types of environmental pollution, such as water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, soil pollution, etc., are disturbing the ecosystem and causing a variety of health hazards to human beings and animals. Environmental pollution damages the ecosystem and destroying the delicate balance of the natural ecosystem. So, nowadays environmental pollution is a matter of great concern and consideration for which we all together follow some effective steps and carry on until problems get solved completely.

Check Related Resources on Environment

FAQs about Speech on the Environment

What is environment 10 lines.

The environment refers to the surroundings in which organisms live and interact. It includes the air, water, land, and all living organisms. It plays a vital role in sustaining life on Earth. Human activities, such as pollution and deforestation, have a significant impact on the environment. Conservation and protection of the environment are essential for the well-being of current and future generations. Biodiversity is a key aspect of the environment, encompassing various species and ecosystems. Climate change is a pressing environmental concern caused by the release of greenhouse gases. Sustainable practices aim to balance human needs with environmental preservation. Environmental education and awareness are crucial for responsible stewardship. International efforts and agreements, like the Paris Agreement, address global environmental challenges.

How do you start an English speech on environment Day?

To start an English speech on Environment Day, you can begin with a powerful quote, a thought-provoking statistic, or a personal anecdote related to the environment. For example, 'Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Imagine a world where clean air and pure water are luxuries, where lush green forests are disappearing, and species are vanishing at an alarming rate. Today, I stand before you on World Environment Day to shed light on the critical issues our planet faces and the urgent need for collective action.'

What is the theme for Environment Day?

The theme for Environment Day varies each year, promoting different environmental issues.

Why is 5th June celebrated as World Environment Day?

June 5th is celebrated as World Environment Day because it marks the day when the United Nations established it in 1972. The purpose of this day is to raise global awareness about environmental issues and encourage people, governments, and organizations to take positive actions to protect and preserve the environment. Each year, a different theme is chosen to focus on specific environmental challenges, making it a day of reflection and action for the planet.

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

America’s Colleges Are Reaping What They Sowed

Universities spent years saying that activism is not just welcome but encouraged on their campuses. Students took them at their word.

Listen to this article

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

N ick Wilson, a sophomore at Cornell University, came to Ithaca, New York, to refine his skills as an activist. Attracted by both Cornell’s labor-relations school and the university’s history of campus radicalism, he wrote his application essay about his involvement with a Democratic Socialists of America campaign to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act . When he arrived on campus, he witnessed any number of signs that Cornell shared his commitment to not just activism but also militant protest, taking note of a plaque commemorating the armed occupation of Willard Straight Hall in 1969.

Cornell positively romanticizes that event: The university library has published a “ Willard Straight Hall Occupation Study Guide ,” and the office of the dean of students once co-sponsored a panel on the protest. The school has repeatedly screened a documentary about the occupation, Agents of Change . The school’s official newspaper, published by the university media-relations office, ran a series of articles honoring the 40th anniversary, in 2009, and in 2019, Cornell held a yearlong celebration for the 50th, complete with a commemorative walk, a dedication ceremony, and a public conversation with some of the occupiers. “ Occupation Anniversary Inspires Continued Progress ,” the Cornell Chronicle headline read.

As Wilson has discovered firsthand, however, the school’s hagiographical odes to prior protests have not prevented it from cracking down on pro-Palestine protests in the present. Now that he has been suspended for the very thing he told Cornell he came there to learn how to do—radical political organizing—he is left reflecting on the school’s hypocrisies. That the theme of this school year at Cornell is “Freedom of Expression” adds a layer of grim humor to the affair.

Evan Mandery: University of hypocrisy

University leaders are in a bind. “These protests are really dynamic situations that can change from minute to minute,” Stephen Solomon, who teaches First Amendment law and is the director of NYU’s First Amendment Watch—an organization devoted to free speech—told me. “But the obligation of universities is to make the distinction between speech protected by the First Amendment and speech that is not.” Some of the speech and tactics protesters are employing may not be protected under the First Amendment, while much of it plainly is. The challenge universities are confronting is not just the law but also their own rhetoric. Many universities at the center of the ongoing police crackdowns have long sought to portray themselves as bastions of activism and free thought. Cornell is one of many universities that champion their legacy of student activism when convenient, only to bring the hammer down on present-day activists when it’s not. The same colleges that appeal to students such as Wilson by promoting opportunities for engagement and activism are now suspending them. And they’re calling the cops.

The police activity we are seeing universities level against their own students does not just scuff the carefully cultivated progressive reputations of elite private universities such as Columbia, Emory University, and NYU, or the equally manicured free-speech bona fides of red-state public schools such as Indiana University and the University of Texas at Austin. It also exposes what these universities have become in the 21st century. Administrators have spent much of the recent past recruiting social-justice-minded students and faculty to their campuses under the implicit, and often explicit, promise that activism is not just welcome but encouraged. Now the leaders of those universities are shocked to find that their charges and employees believed them. And rather than try to understand their role in cultivating this morass, the Ivory Tower’s bigwigs have decided to apply their boot heels to the throats of those under their care.

I spoke with 30 students, professors, and administrators from eight schools—a mix of public and private institutions across the United States—to get a sense of the disconnect between these institutions’ marketing of activism and their treatment of protesters. A number of people asked to remain anonymous. Some were untenured faculty or administrators concerned about repercussions from, or for, their institutions. Others were directly involved in organizing protests and were wary of being harassed. Several incoming students I spoke with were worried about being punished by their school before they even arrived. Despite a variety of ideological commitments and often conflicting views on the protests, many of those I interviewed were “shocked but not surprised”—a phrase that came up time and again—by the hypocrisy exhibited by the universities with which they were affiliated. (I reached out to Columbia, NYU, Cornell, and Emory for comment on the disconnect between their championing of past protests and their crackdowns on the current protesters. Representatives from Columbia, Cornell, and Emory pointed me to previous public statements. NYU did not respond.)

The sense that Columbia trades on the legacy of the Vietnam protests that rocked campus in 1968 was widespread among the students I spoke with. Indeed, the university honors its activist past both directly and indirectly, through library archives , an online exhibit , an official “Columbia 1968” X account , no shortage of anniversary articles in Columbia Magazine , and a current course titled simply “Columbia 1968.” The university is sometimes referred to by alumni and aspirants as the “Protest Ivy.” One incoming student told me that he applied to the school in part because of an admissions page that prominently listed community organizers and activists among its “distinguished alumni.”

Joseph Slaughter, an English professor and the executive director of Columbia’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights, talked with his class about the 1968 protests after the recent arrests at the school. He said his students felt that the university had actively marketed its history to them. “Many, many, many of them said they were sold the story of 1968 as part of coming to Columbia,” he told me. “They talked about it as what the university presents to them as the long history and tradition of student activism. They described it as part of the brand.”

This message reaches students before they take their first college class. As pro-Palestine demonstrations began to raise tensions on campus last month, administrators were keen to cast these protests as part of Columbia’s proud culture of student activism. The aforementioned high-school senior who had been impressed by Columbia’s activist alumni attended the university’s admitted-students weekend just days before the April 18 NYPD roundup. During the event, the student said, an admissions official warned attendees that they may experience “disruptions” during their visit, but boasted that these were simply part of the school’s “long and robust history of student protest.”

Remarkably, after more than 100 students were arrested on the order of Columbia President Minouche Shafik—in which she overruled a unanimous vote by the university senate’s executive committee not to bring the NYPD to campus —university administrators were still pushing this message to new students and parents. An email sent on April 19 informed incoming students that “demonstration, political activism, and deep respect for freedom of expression have long been part of the fabric of our campus.” Another email sent on April 20 again promoted Columbia’s tradition of activism, protest, and support of free speech. “This can sometimes create moments of tension,” the email read, “but the rich dialogue and debate that accompany this tradition is central to our educational experience.”

Evelyn Douek and Genevieve Lakier: The hypocrisy underlying the campus-speech controversy

Another student who attended a different event for admitted students, this one on April 21, said that every administrator she heard speak paid lip service to the school’s long history of protest. Her own feelings about the pro-Palestine protests were mixed—she said she believes that a genocide is happening in Gaza and also that some elements of the protest are plainly anti-Semitic—but her feelings about Columbia’s decision to involve the police were unambiguous. “It’s reprehensible but exactly what an Ivy League institution would do in this situation. I don’t know why everyone is shocked,” she said, adding: “It makes me terrified to go there.”

Beth Massey, a veteran activist who participated in the 1968 protests, told me with a laugh, “They might want to tell us they’re progressive, but they’re doing the business of the ruling class.” She was not surprised by the harsh response to the current student encampment or by the fact that it lit the fuse on a nationwide protest movement. Massey had been drawn to the radical reputation of Columbia’s sister school, Barnard College, as an open-minded teenager from the segregated South: “I actually wanted to go to Barnard because they had a history of progressive struggle that had happened going all the way back into the ’40s.” And the barn-burning history that appealed to Massey in the late 1960s has continued to attract contemporary students, albeit with one key difference: Today, that radical history has become part of the way that Barnard and Columbia sell their $60,000-plus annual tuition.

Of course, Columbia is not alone. The same trends have also prevailed at NYU, which likes to crow about its own radical history and promises contemporary students “ a world of activism opportunities .” An article published on the university’s website in March—titled “Make a Difference Through Activism at NYU”—promises students “myriad chances to put your activism into action.” The article points to campus institutions that “provide students with resources and opportunities to spark activism and change both on campus and beyond.” The six years I spent as a graduate student at NYU gave me plenty of reasons to be cynical about the university and taught me to view all of this empty activism prattle as white noise. But even I was astounded to see a video of students and faculty set upon by the NYPD, arrested at the behest of President Linda Mills.

“Across the board, there is a heightened awareness of hypocrisy,” Mohamad Bazzi, a journalism professor at NYU, told me, noting that faculty were acutely conscious of the gap between the institution’s intensive commitment to DEI and the police crackdown. The university has recently made several “cluster hires”—centered on activism-oriented themes such as anti-racism, social justice, and indigeneity—that helped diversify the faculty. Some of those recent hires were among the people who spent a night zip-tied in a jail cell, arrested for the exact kind of activism that had made them attractive to NYU in the first place. And it wasn’t just faculty. The law students I spoke with were especially acerbic. After honing her activism skills at her undergraduate institution—another university that recently saw a violent police response to pro-Palestine protests—one law student said she came to NYU because she was drawn to its progressive reputation and its high percentage of prison-abolitionist faculty. This irony was not lost on her as the police descended on the encampment.

After Columbia students were arrested on April 18, students at NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study decided to cancel a planned art festival and instead use the time to make sandwiches as jail support for their detained uptown peers. The school took photos of the students layering cold cuts on bread and posted it to Gallatin’s official Instagram. These posts not only failed to mention that the students were working in support of the pro-Palestine protesters; the caption—“making sandwiches for those in need”—implied that the undergrads might be preparing meals for, say, the homeless.

The contradictions on display at Cornell, Columbia, and NYU are not limited to the state of New York. The police response at Emory, another university that brags about its tradition of student protest, was among the most disturbing I have seen. Faculty members I spoke with at the Atlanta school, including two who had been arrested—the philosophy professor Noëlle McAfee and the English and Indigenous-studies professor Emil’ Keme—recounted harrowing scenes: a student being knocked down, an elderly woman struggling to breathe after tear-gas exposure, a colleague with welts from rubber bullets. These images sharply contrast with the university’s progressive mythmaking, a process that was in place even before 2020’s “summer of racial reckoning” sent universities scrambling to shore up their activist credentials.

In 2018, Emory’s Campus Life office partnered with students and a design studio to begin work on an exhibit celebrating the university’s history of identity-based activism. Then, not long after George Floyd’s murder, the university’s library released a series of blog posts focusing on topics including “Black Student Activism at Emory,” “Protests and Movements,” “Voting Rights and Public Policy,” and “Authors and Artists as Activists.” That same year, the university announced its new Arts and Social Justice Fellows initiative, a program that “brings Atlanta artists into Emory classrooms to help students translate their learning into creative activism in the name of social justice.” In 2021, the university put on an exhibit celebrating its 1969 protests , in which “Black students marched, demonstrated, picketed, and ‘rapped’ on those institutions affecting the lives of workers and students at Emory.” Like Cornell’s and Columbia’s, Emory’s protests seem to age like fine wine: It takes half a century before the institution begins enjoying them.

N early every person I talked with believed that their universities’ responses were driven by donors, alumni, politicians, or some combination thereof. They did not believe that they were grounded in serious or reasonable concerns about the physical safety of students; in fact, most felt strongly that introducing police into the equation had made things far more dangerous for both pro-Palestine protesters and pro-Israel counterprotesters. Jeremi Suri, a historian at UT Austin—who told me he is not politically aligned with the protesters—recalls pleading with both the dean of students and the mounted state troopers to call off the charge. “It was like the Russian army had come onto campus,” Suri mused. “I was out there for 45 minutes to an hour. I’m very sensitive to anti-Semitism. Nothing anti-Semitic was said.” He added: “There was no reason not to let them shout until their voices went out.”

From the May 1930 issue: Hypocrisy–a defense

As one experienced senior administrator at a major research university told me, the conflagration we are witnessing shows how little many university presidents understand either their campus communities or the young people who populate them. “When I saw what Columbia was doing, my immediate thought was: They have not thought about day two ,” he said, laughing. “If you confront an 18-year-old activist, they don’t back down. They double down.” That’s what happened in 1968, and it’s happening again now. Early Tuesday morning, Columbia students occupied Hamilton Hall—the site of the 1968 occupation, which they rechristened Hind’s Hall in honor of a 6-year-old Palestinian girl killed in Gaza—in response to the university’s draconian handling of the protests. They explicitly tied these events to the university’s past, calling out its hypocrisy on Instagram: “This escalation is in line with the historical student movements of 1968 … which Columbia repressed then and celebrates today.” The university, for its part, responded now as it did then: Late on Tuesday, the NYPD swarmed the campus in an overnight raid that led to the arrest of dozens of students.

The students, professors, and administrators I’ve spoken with in recent days have made clear that this hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed and that the crackdown isn’t working, but making things worse. The campus resistance has expanded to include faculty and students who were originally more ambivalent about the protests and, in a number of cases, who support Israel. They are disturbed by what they rightly see as violations of free expression, the erosion of faculty governance, and the overreach of administrators. Above all, they’re fed up with the incandescent hypocrisy of institutions, hoisted with their own progressive petards, as the unstoppable force of years’ worth of self-righteous rhetoric and pseudo-radical posturing meets the immovable object of students who took them at their word.

In another video published by The Cornell Daily Sun , recorded only hours after he was suspended, Nick Wilson explained to a crowd of student protesters what had brought him to the school. “In high school, I discovered my passion, which was community organizing for a better world. I told Cornell University that’s why I wanted to be here,” he said, referencing his college essay. Then he paused for emphasis, looking around as his peers began to cheer. “And those fuckers admitted me.”

Pope takes aim at guns and condoms at pro-birth conference

• Medium Text

CATS AND DOGS INSTEAD OF CHILDREN

Sign up here.

Editing by Alex Richardson and Gavin Jones

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Joost Klein expelled as Eurovision braces for protests

Switzerland was leading in the grand final of the Eurovision Song Contest on Saturday after a partial vote count, ahead of France and Ireland in what remains a wide-open race as protests continued in host city Malmo over the war in Gaza.