essay on global zero

Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Really Possible?

Subscribe to this week in foreign policy, michael e. o’hanlon michael e. o’hanlon director of research - foreign policy , director - strobe talbott center for security, strategy, and technology , co-director - africa security initiative , senior fellow - foreign policy , strobe talbott center for security, strategy, and technology , philip h. knight chair in defense and strategy.

May 4, 2010

• 12 min read

Can mankind uninvent the nuclear bomb, and rid the world of the greatest military threat to the human species and the survival of the planet ever created?

Logic might seem to say of course not. But the president of the United States and a number of key foreign-policy dignitaries are now on record saying yes. They acknowledge that a nuclear-weapons-free world remains a vision, not immediately attainable and perhaps not achievable within the lifetimes of most contemporary policy makers. But they believe that the vision needs to be shared, in a vibrant, powerful way.

A movement known as Global Zero has gained in strength to attempt just that. It was established in the wake of a January 2007 newspaper column by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn advocating a nuclear-free world. A group of 100 signatories (not including the above four) established Global Zero in Paris in December 2008. The organization’s goal is to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2030 through a multilateral, universal, verifiable process, with negotiations on the Global Zero treaty beginning by 2019.

Ideas about eliminating the bomb are as old as the bomb itself. But Global Zero draws inspiration from the recent grass-roots effort to craft a land-mine treaty, and from the work of several influential philanthropists in global antipoverty campaigns. Of course, it also evolved from earlier nonproliferation efforts, including the 1996 report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. But the pace of the nonproliferation movement has accelerated in recent years. The current movement is notable too in that it has a serious strategy for moving forward—not at some distant time when miraculous new inventions might make nukes obsolete, but by later this decade, even if it would take at least another decade to put a treaty into effect.

Will President Obama really pursue such an idea? He gave an inspiring speech in Prague early in his first year in office, agreed to modest cuts in deployed forces with Russia in the New Start Treaty, and modestly lowered the profile of nuclear weapons in the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report. Those steps are not insignificant, but they have a good deal of continuity with past policy, and still leave us very far from nuclear zero.

The much-heralded nuclear-security summit in April, in Washington, was worthwhile. But it was notable primarily not for its progress toward nuclear zero, but for actions to reduce the risks of nuclear theft, accident, and terrorism. For example, Mexico agreed to convert a research reactor from highly enriched uranium (usable in bombs) to lower-enriched uranium (not usable); Ukraine agreed to eliminate its stocks of highly enriched uranium within two years; the United States and Russia recommitted to eliminate an excess stock of plutonium; and so on. Those steps, as well as the administration’s 25-percent increase in spending for global nonproliferation activities (to $2.7-billion in the 2011 budget request), are entirely sensible. But it seems unlikely that Obama will push nuclear issues in additional bold new ways anytime soon. On other national-security matters like Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been extremely pragmatic and deferential to military commanders, and other priorities, especially economic recovery, compete for his time and attention.

But even if Obama, in effect, drops nuclear zero, crises in Iran and North Korea may bring the issue to a head soon. As Obama is surely all too keenly aware, the motivation for nuclear-weapons abolition is not utopian or futuristic. It is the very pragmatic, immediate need to deny extremist countries the excuse of getting the bomb because others already have it. With leaders in Tehran, P’yongyang, and elsewhere bent on getting nuclear weapons, and charging Americans with double standards in our insistence that we can have the bomb but they cannot, Obama’s ability to galvanize a global coalition to pressure Iran, North Korea, and possibly others into scaling back their weapons programs may depend in part on regaining the moral high ground. And that, in turn, may require an American commitment to work toward giving up its own arsenal—that is, once doing so is verifiable, and once others agree to do the same.

But how to rid the world of nukes? And how to do so safely? A nuclear-abolition treaty could constructively contribute to global stability if done right, but it could be hazardous if done wrong. Among other things, it could make countries that depend on America’s military protection decide they should seek nuclear weapons of their own. Serious consequences could ensue if the Turkeys and Saudi Arabias and Japans and Taiwans of the world interpret the American debate over Global Zero to imply that they can no longer rely on the United States as a dependable strategic partner—a formal ally in the cases of Turkey and Japan, a more informal but still-trusted friend in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. The Global Zero movement could wind up sparking the very wave of nuclear proliferation and instability it was designed to prevent.

Sam Nunn compares nuclear disarmament to a mountain, with the summit beyond our current grasp and perhaps even out of sight. He advocates moving to a higher base camp, meaning much deeper disarmament and related measures, to determine if we can later reach the summit. That image makes sense, but I’d urge even more caution: We must also be safe on the way to the new base camp, and avoid committing ourselves to a certain route to the top too soon. A few scholars, including George Perkovich, Barry M. Blechman, and Frank N. von Hippel, acknowledge and discuss such complexities, but most Global Zero advocates don’t.

My forthcoming book on the subject does not argue against nuclear abolition; it is in fact a friendly skeptic’s case for nuclear disarmament. But I emphasize the conditions and caveats that would have to accompany any such treaty regime—including clear rules for how major powers might consider rearming themselves with nukes in the event of a future violation, even after weapons have supposedly been abolished. What if a dangerous country is highly suspected of having an active nuclear-weapons program but verification cannot resolve the question? What if a country develops an advanced biological pathogen with enormous potential lethality—and perhaps even an antidote that it could employ to protect its own people? Would nuclear deterrence truly be irrelevant or inappropriate as a response?

Many, if not most, advocates of Global Zero consider the abolition of nuclear weapons the moral equivalent of the abolition of slavery, and imply that, as with slavery, once eliminated, nukes should be gone for good. (The exception, these advocates say, would be a blatant violation of the treaty by a country that chooses to build a nuclear arsenal.) That, however, is a dangerous vision of a nuke-free world because it would deprive us of deterrent options we may someday need. Even once we eliminate nuclear weapons, in other words, we will have to accept the fact that we may not have done so forever. At a practical level, we will most likely still be living in a world full of nuclear power plants, as well as nuclear waste from nuclear bomb and energy programs to date. Neither the knowledge nor the nuclear materials will disappear.

What of the issue of timing—not only of when to try to negotiate and then eventually put in place a treaty, but of explaining the vision of nuclear disarmament for the short term? Many abolition advocates pull back the minute anyone asks if they want a treaty soon, recognizing the impracticality of trying to abolish nuclear weapons quickly. But it is they who put the idea into the contemporary nuclear debate with a renewed urgency, so putting off the details is neither consistent nor advisable.

That’s OK. There’s no time like the present, right? After all, eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the earth has technically been a goal of United States policy since the 1960s. Moreover, the world is likely to lose sight of the big picture during slow negotiations over the recent New Start Treaty with Moscow and ratification debates over that pact as well as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Bold ideas are inspiring and help the world remember how much is at stake.

I argue for a middle ground. Moving to nuclear zero at a set date in the near future is too fast. But dropping the subject for now and waiting for the 22nd century is too slow. Trying to abolish nuclear weapons too soon can, as I’ve said, spook American allies under our protection, but can also disrupt deterrent arrangements that are working today yet also somewhat fragile. That is, too much haste could encourage states entirely disinterested in nuclear disarmament to build up arsenals in the hope that the existing nuclear powers will reduce and thereby render their own nascent nuclear power greater. Too much haste also simply lacks credibility in a world in which some countries—Russia, Israel, Pakistan—clearly have no interest in denuclearizing anytime soon, even if the United States did. Declaration of ambitious but arbitrary and unattainable deadlines for action is more likely to discredit the Global Zero movement than to advance it.

The problem with putting off the nuclear-disarmament agenda, however, is that it leaves existing powers in a weak position to pressure would-be proliferators to abstain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and perpetuates a sense of complacency about the supposed safety of living with the bomb. We need a prudent form of urgency. Neither haste and impetuousness nor indefinite postponement on the matter will do.

The right time horizon for seriously pushing a new nuclear accord is when most of the world’s half-dozen or so major territorial and existential issues involving major powers are resolved—and this cannot be set to a calendar as precisely as the Global Zero movement would like. Those issues include the status of Taiwan, the territorial status of Kashmir, political relations between Russia and key “near abroad” states of Georgia and Ukraine in particular, and friction between Israel and its neighbors. Nuclear crises involving Iran and North Korea also need to be resolved, though the beginnings of a move toward nuclear disarmament might not have to await their complete resolution.

Once the former matters are largely resolved, the plausibility of great-power war over any imaginable issue that we can identify today will be very low. That would, in turn, make the basic structure and functioning of the international political system stable enough to take the risk of moving toward a nuclear-free world. That process will be so radical as to be inherently destabilizing in some sense, and thus prudent to pursue only when the great powers are in a cooperative mode and undivided by irredentist territorial matters.

Some argue that there is no foreseeable period of great-power peace and thus no prospect of the preconditions required for moving toward a denuclearized world. Such scholars often call themselves “realists” and imply that ideas such as Global Zero are just too utopian to be within mankind’s reach. But the so-called realists have a problem with their argument, too—the history of fallible mankind, and particularly of the nuclear age to date, makes it hard to believe that nuclear weapons will never be used if they continue to occupy a central role in international politics. If realism consigns us to the likelihood of nuclear war someday, it is hard to see why it is so prudent a worldview—indeed, it is hard even to call it realist, with all the connotations of prudence and pragmatism that the term implies.

That said, my vision for nuclear disarmament is of dismantling nuclear warheads, and should not be confused with their permanent abolition. The term “abolition” has several inappropriate connotations for our nuclear future. While most plausible uses of nuclear weapons would in fact be inhumane, it is war itself that is most inhumane, and war targeting civilians through whatever means that is the fundamental moral blight we should be trying to eliminate. Certain forms of biological-weapons attack, especially with plausible future pathogens; of large-scale conventional conflict resembling the world wars; and of wars that include genocide could be every bit as inhumane.

Outlawing nuclear weapons in a way that increased the prospects of other types of immoral warfare would be no accomplishment at all. Even as we strive for dismantling nuclear weapons, we need practical options for rebuilding them should even greater perils present themselves. Those might be pursuit of nuclear arms by a country bent on violating the accord, the development of advanced biological pathogens (the Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report follows this line of thought), and even an especially threatening conventional military buildup by a future extremist state. That is the broad, strategic argument in favor of preserving options for nuclear reconstitution under a temporary withdrawal from the treaty, even after nuclear disarmament might someday be a reality.

The terms by which the right of temporary withdrawal could be exercised must be clearly stated, and a burden of proof placed on any state or group of states exercising the right. I argue for a “contact group” of democratic states, including not just traditional allies but newer powers like India and Brazil, that would be asked to support an American decision to rearm, should Washington ever consider that necessary. (The U.N. Security Council might not be reliable for that purpose, though it should be consulted too.)

Capricious or blatantly self-serving reconstitution must be avoided. But a treaty that precluded the international community from responding to the actions of an advanced future military power believed to be pursuing nuclear, biological, or enormous conventional military capabilities would be a chimera.

There is also a technical reason to view reconstitution as a real future policy option, even short of such extreme circumstances. Simply put, nuclear weapons will always be within reach of mankind, whatever we may do, whatever we may wish. Verification methods will almost surely be incapable of assuring us that all existing materials are dismantled or destroyed, even as verification improves in coming years. Moreover, demands for the nuclear-power industry make it likely that bomb-grade materials will be salvageable from nuclear fuel or nuclear waste.

In other words, not only is permanent, irreversible abolition unwise, it is also probably impossible. Still, dismantlement of all existing bomb inventories, in recognition of the fact that the day-to-day role of nuclear weapons in international security is dangerous and ultimately unsustainable, should become our goal.

With all the caveats and conditions, is a nuclear-disarmament treaty worth the trouble? Yes, because of the danger posed by nuclear weapons, on the one hand, and the positive power of ideas and ideals in international politics on the other. These weapons are so heinously destructive as to be illegitimate; they are fundamentally indiscriminate killers, and on top of that, they have proved to be far harder to safely build and handle than many understand. They have no proper role even as visible deterrents in the normal interactions of states, and we should aspire to a world in which they would no longer have such an active, operational role.

Foreign Policy

Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative

Cameron F. Kerry

August 29, 2024

Robin Brooks, Ben Harris

Karam Shaar, Steven Heydemann

August 26, 2024

We Can Eliminate Nuclear Weapons In Our Lifetime

Reaching zero.

In 1986, there were 70,300 nuclear weapons on the planet. Today, an estimated 12,500 weapons remain. 

In the dark days of the Cold War, few could have imagined the arms race would give way to decades of international cooperation that reduced global nuclear arsenals by 80%.  

Big vision and leadership, emboldened by public demand too loud to ignore, has taken us a long way through challenging times. We can keep going, and we’ve mapped the way forward.

• 70,300 Nuclear weapons in 1986
• 12,500 Nuclear weapons in 2024
• 0 Nuclear weapons in 2045

Building the Movement

Global Zero’s work aims to unlock the world of possibility beyond the bomb. 

Imagine a future where stability is not conflated with the threat of mass destruction; where safety for some no longer requires vulnerability for others; where justice and equity are experienced by communities most impacted by nuclear harm; and where international cooperation in the face of common threats allows us to finally address the many other urgent challenges competing for attention.

That future is possible — but we can’t get there alone. It will take bold leadership backed by a people-powered movement to topple these weapons of mass destruction and the systems of injustice that uphold them.

Achieving Justice

Nuclear abolition is not a standalone fight. Our movement intersects across other existential threats and social issues, from climate and racial justice to democracy and public health. Whether it’s extractive uranium mining, nuclear testing, waste storage, or coercive nuclear threats, abolishing these weapons is a critical pillar of the global fight for equity and justice.

In The News

Oppenheimer opened a door. we can close it..

8 August 2023

Managing Director Derek Johnson writes, “The greatest danger to human civilization and the planet is the inability to believe that tomorrow can be different, the idea that we are individually powerless in the face of colliding existential threats.”

Former Obama administration official discusses nuclear danger

22 June 2023

The Maine Monitor

Senior Advisor joins the The Midcoast Forum on Foreign Relations to discuss ​whether a new era of nuclear danger is upon us.

YaleGlobal Online

The history of zero.

From placeholder to the driver of calculus, zero has crossed the greatest minds and most diverse borders since it was born many centuries ago. Today, zero is perhaps the most pervasive global symbol known. In the story of zero, something can be made out of nothing.

Zero, zip, zilch - how often has a question been answered by one of these words? Countless, no doubt. Yet behind this seemingly simple answer conveying nothing lays the story of an idea that took many centuries to develop, many countries to cross, and many minds to comprehend. Understanding and working with zero is the basis of our world today; without zero we would lack calculus, financial accounting, the ability to make arithmetic computations quickly, and, especially in today’s connected world, computers. The story of zero is the story of an idea that has aroused the imagination of great minds across the globe.

When anyone thinks of one hundred, two hundred, or seven thousand the image in his or her mind is of a digit followed by a few zeros. The zero functions as a placeholder; that is, three zeroes denotes that there are seven thousands, rather than only seven hundreds. If we were missing one zero, that would drastically change the amount. Just imagine having one zero erased (or added) to your salary! Yet, the number system we use today - Arabic, though it in fact came originally from India - is relatively new. For centuries people marked quantities with a variety of symbols and figures, although it was awkward to perform the simplest arithmetic calculations with these number systems.

The Sumerians were the first to develop a counting system to keep an account of their stock of goods - cattle, horses, and donkeys, for example. The Sumerian system was positional; that is, the placement of a particular symbol relative to others denoted its value. The Sumerian system was handed down to the Akkadians around 2500 BC and then to the Babylonians in 2000 BC. It was the Babylonians who first conceived of a mark to signify that a number was absent from a column; just as 0 in 1025 signifies that there are no hundreds in that number. Although zero’s Babylonian ancestor was a good start, it would still be centuries before the symbol as we know it appeared.

The renowned mathematicians among the Ancient Greeks, who learned the fundamentals of their math from the Egyptians, did not have a name for zero, nor did their system feature a placeholder as did the Babylonian. They may have pondered it, but there is no conclusive evidence to say the symbol even existed in their language. It was the Indians who began to understand zero both as a symbol and as an idea.

Brahmagupta, around 650 AD, was the first to formalize arithmetic operations using zero. He used dots underneath numbers to indicate a zero. These dots were alternately referred to as ‘sunya’, which means empty, or ‘kha’, which means place. Brahmagupta wrote standard rules for reaching zero through addition and subtraction as well as the results of operations with zero. The only error in his rules was division by zero, which would have to wait for Isaac Newton and G.W. Leibniz to tackle.

But it would still be a few centuries before zero reached Europe. First, the great Arabian voyagers would bring the texts of Brahmagupta and his colleagues back from India along with spices and other exotic items. Zero reached Baghdad by 773 AD and would be developed in the Middle East by Arabian mathematicians who would base their numbers on the Indian system. In the ninth century, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi was the first to work on equations that equaled zero, or algebra as it has come to be known. He also developed quick methods for multiplying and dividing numbers known as algorithms (a corruption of his name). Al-Khowarizmi called zero ‘sifr’, from which our cipher is derived. By 879 AD, zero was written almost as we now know it, an oval - but in this case smaller than the other numbers. And thanks to the conquest of Spain by the Moors, zero finally reached Europe; by the middle of the twelfth century, translations of Al-Khowarizmi’s work had weaved their way to England.

The Italian mathematician, Fibonacci, built on Al-Khowarizmi’s work with algorithms in his book Liber Abaci, or “Abacus book,” in 1202. Until that time, the abacus had been the most prevalent tool to perform arithmetic operations. Fibonacci’s developments quickly gained notice by Italian merchants and German bankers, especially the use of zero. Accountants knew their books were balanced when the positive and negative amounts of their assets and liabilities equaled zero. But governments were still suspicious of Arabic numerals because of the ease in which it was possible to change one symbol into another. Though outlawed, merchants continued to use zero in encrypted messages, thus the derivation of the word cipher, meaning code, from the Arabic sifr.

The next great mathematician to use zero was Rene Descartes, the founder of the Cartesian coordinate system. As anyone who has had to graph a triangle or a parabola knows, Descartes’ origin is (0,0). Although zero was now becoming more common, the developers of calculus, Newton and Lebiniz, would make the final step in understanding zero.

Adding, subtracting, and multiplying by zero are relatively simple operations. But division by zero has confused even great minds. How many times does zero go into ten? Or, how many non-existent apples go into two apples? The answer is indeterminate, but working with this concept is the key to calculus. For example, when one drives to the store, the speed of the car is never constant - stoplights, traffic jams, and different speed limits all cause the car to speed up or slow down. But how would one find the speed of the car at one particular instant? This is where zero and calculus enter the picture.

If you wanted to know your speed at a particular instant, you would have to measure the change in speed that occurs over a set period of time. By making that set period smaller and smaller, you could reasonably estimate the speed at that instant. In effect, as you make the change in time approach zero, the ratio of the change in speed to the change in time becomes similar to some number over zero - the same problem that stumped Brahmagupta.

In the 1600’s, Newton and Leibniz solved this problem independently and opened the world to tremendous possibilities. By working with numbers as they approach zero, calculus was born without which we wouldn’t have physics, engineering, and many aspects of economics and finance.

In the twenty-first century zero is so familiar that to talk about it seems like much ado about nothing. But it is precisely understanding and working with this nothing that has allowed civilization to progress. The development of zero across continents, centuries, and minds has made it one of the greatest accomplishments of human society. Because math is a global language, and calculus its crowning achievement, zero exists and is used everywhere. But, like its function as a symbol and a concept meant to denote absence, zero may still seem like nothing at all. Yet, recall the fears over Y2K and zero no longer seems like a tale told by an idiot.

References: 1. Kaplan, Robert (2000). The Nothing that Is: A Natural History of Zero. New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Seife, Charles (2000). Zero: The Biography

Rights: © Copyright Yale Center for the Study of Globalization 2002

World Hunger Essay: Causes of World Hunger & How to Solve It

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

World Hunger Essay Introduction

History of world hunger, statistics of the world hunger, causes of the world hunger, impacts of world hunger, responses to world hunger, recommended solutions, world hunger essay conclusion.

World hunger is one of the best topics to write about. You can discuss its causes, how to solve it, and how we can create a world without hunger. Whether you need to write an entire world hunger essay or just a conclusion or a hook, this sample will inspire you.

Hunger is a term that has been defined differently by different people due to its physiological as well as its socio economic aspects. In most cases, the term hunger has been defined in relation to food insecurity. However, according to Holben (n. d. pp. 1), hunger is usually defined as a condition that is painful or uneasy emanating from lack of food.

In the same studies, hunger has yet been defined as persistent and involuntary inability to access food. Therefore, world hunger refers to a condition characterized by want and scarce food in the whole world. Technically, hunger refers to malnutrition a condition that is marked by lack of some, or all the nutrients that are necessary to maintain health of an individual.

There are two types of malnutrition which include micronutrient deficiency and protein energy malnutrition. It is important to note that world hunger generally refers to protein energy malnutrition which is caused by inadequacy of proteins and energy giving food. According to World Hunger education Service (2010 Para. 4), the recent statistics by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) records that there is a total of about nine hundred and twenty five million people in the whole world who are described as hungry.

It is a serious condition since statistics indicate that the number has been on the increase since the mid twentieth center. With that background in mind, this paper shall focus on the problem of world hunger, history, statistics, impacts as well as solutions to the problem.

The problem of hunger has been persistent since early centuries given that people residing in Europe continent used to suffer from serious shortages of food. The problem intensified in the twentieth century due to increase of wars, plagues and other natural disasters like floods, famines and earth quakes. Consequently, a lot of people succumbed to malnutrition and death.

However, during the mid twentieth century and after the Second World War, food production increased by 69% and therefore, there was enough food to feed the population by (National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Public Engineering Policy, 1975 pp. vii).

The situation of food adequacy which continued from the year 1954-1972 was as a result of various factors which were inclusive but not limited to better methods of farming, land reclamation, use of fertilizers, use of irrigation, as well as use of machines and other forms of skilled labor.

In 1970s, people thought that they could keep the problem of hunger under control by conserving environment, controlling population growth and technological development. Nevertheless, even with such optimism, studies of National Research Council (U.S.).

Committee on Public Engineering Policy (1975 pp. vii), record that by 1974, the condition had already grown out of hand because there was not only a high population growth rate, but energy was also extremely expensive. To make the matter worse, the same study records that a quarter of the total population in the world were already experiencing hunger.

Therefore, due to hunger, agencies which were dealing with the problem started to request for the intervention of the humanitarian relief as well as trying to solve the problem thorough the use of the green revolution. The problem of hunger contributed greatly to the technological development since by all costs, people had to survive. However, although agriculture continued to expand, the population continued to increase and that is why the problem of hunger has persisted throughout the twentieth century to the twenty first century.

As highlighted in the introductory part, nine million people in the world are malnourished but further studies indicate that the exact number is not known. It is important to note that though the problem of hunger is virtually everywhere in the world, most of the hunger stricken people are found in the developing countries.

Despite the fact that the number has been on the increase since 1995, a decrease was observed in last year. The figures below clearly explain the statistical trend of world hunger from 1968 to 2009 (World Hunger Education Service, 2010 Para. 4).

Figure 1. The Number of Hunger Stricken People from 1969-2010

Source (World Hunger Education Service, 2010)

Figure 2: Distribution of Hungry People in the Whole World by Regions

Source: (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010 pp. 2)

The above figure clearly illustrates that the problem of hunger is most common in the developing countries and less common in the developed countries. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010 pp. 2), 19 million are found in developed countries, thirty seven million in North East and North Africa, fifty three in Latin and Caribbean America, two hundred and thirty nine million in Sub Saharan Africa and five hundred and seventy eight in Asia and Pacific Region.

However, it is important to mention that the Food and Agriculture Organization arrives at the above figures by considering the total income of people and the income distribution. Therefore, the figures given are just estimates and that is the main reason why it has become increasingly difficult to get the actual number of hungry people in the whole world.

There are many causes of world hunger but poverty is the main and the same is caused by lack of enough resources as well as unequal distribution of recourses among the populations especially in the developing countries.

According to World Hunger Education Service (2010 Para 10. ), World Bank estimates that there are a bout one million, three hundred and forty five million people who are poor in the whole world since their daily expenditure is 1.25 dollars or even less. Similarly, Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about one billion people in the whole world are under nourished.

As expected, the problem of poverty affects mostly the developing countries although there have been a lot of campaigns which have been launched with an aim of poverty reduction. Consequently in some parts Asia and China, the campaigns have been successful because the number has reduced by 19% (World Hunger Education Service, 2010 para. 12). Conversely, in some parts like the sub-Saharan Africa, the number of poor people has gone up.

Since the study has indicated that poverty is the main cause of hunger, it is important to look at the underlying cause of poverty. According to World Hunger Education Service (2010), the current economic as well as political systems in the world contribute greatly to the problem of hunger and poverty.

The main reason is due to the fact that more often than not, resources are controlled by the economic and political institutions which are controlled by the minority. Therefore, policies which emanate from poor economic systems are contributory factor to poverty and hunger.

Conflict and war is an important cause of not only poverty but also hunger. The main reason is due to the fact that conflicts lead to displacement of people and destruction of property and other resources that can be helpful in alleviating hunger. Towards the end of 2005, the number of refugees was lower compared to the current number influenced by violence and conflicts which have been taking place in Iraq as well as in Somali.

The same study clearly indicates that towards the end of the year 2008, UNHCR had recorded more than ten million refugees. A year after, internally displaced persons in the whole world had reached a total of twenty six million (World Hunger Education Service 2010 par 13). However, although it is difficult to provide the total number of internally displaced people due to conflicts, the truth is, refugees mostly suffer from poverty which exposes them to extreme hunger.

Over the last century, climate has been changing in most parts of the world, a condition which has been caused by global warming. It is a real phenomena and the effects of the same are observed in most parts of the world which are inclusive but not limited to draughts, floods, changing weather and climatic patterns as well as hurricanes (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Economic and Social Dept, 2005).

Such effects of globalization contribute greatly to hunger because they destroy the already cultivated food leading to food shortages.

Changing weather and climate patterns require a change to certain crops which is not only expensive but it also takes long to be implemented. In addition, some plants and animals have become extinct and the same contributes greatly to food shortages and hunger in general. Nonetheless, the most serious consequences of global warming are floods draughts and famines since they lead to poverty which ends up increasing people’s susceptibility to hunger. ( Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010)

High food prices in both domestic and international markets are also a contributory factor to world hunger. Although the level of poverty is increasing because the level of income has reduced, the price of various food commodities has also gone up and therefore, it has become increasingly difficult for people to afford adequate food for their needs.

According to the studies of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2008 pp. 24), between the year 2002 to 2007, prices of cereals such as wheat maize as well as rice increased by about fifty percent in the world market.

Nonetheless, although the world market food prices were increasing, the rate was different with domestic prices, a condition caused by the depreciating value of the US dollar while compared to other currencies in the world. However, in the year 2007 and 2008, domestic food prices in most countries also ended up increasing.

High prices in the domestic market are caused by high prices for agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. As highlighted earlier, the need for use of advanced agricultural inputs results from the effects of global warming which is also a chief cause of world hunger and food insecurity.

There are many impacts of world hunger because food is a basic need for everyone in the society. Although impacts of hunger affect people across all the age brackets, young children are usually the worst victims. In science, the condition caused by hunger and starvation is known as under nutrition. It increases the disease burden such that in one year; under nourished children suffer from illnesses for at least five months as the condition lowers their immunity.

In most cases, undernourishment is the underlying cause of various diseases that affect children like malaria, measles, diarrhea and pneumonia. Studies of World Hunger Education Service (2010 par. 10) indicate that malnutrition is the underlying cause of more than half of all the cases of malaria diarrhea and pneumonia in young children. In measles, the same studies indicate that forty five percent of all the cases result from malnutrition.

As the problem of hunger, malnutrition is unequally distributed in the world because about thirty two percent of the stunted children live in the developing countries. Seventy percent of the total number of the malnourished children is found in Asia while Africa hosts 26% and the remaining four percent are from Caribbean and Latin America (World Hunger Education Service, 2010 par 11).

The study points out that the problem starts even before birth because in most cases, pregnant mothers are also usually undernourished. Due to this problem, in every six infants, one is usually undernourished. Apart from death, under nourishment resulting from hunger also causes blindness, difficulties in learning, stunted growth, retardation and poor health, to name just a few.

Apart from disease, poverty is also a resultant factor of hunger. In reference to the definition of hunger as an uncomfortable condition resulting from lack of food, hungry people are usually incapacitated. Since food is an important source of energy, people suffering from hunger are usually not in a position to take part in useful economic activities and a result, they are usually poor.

In addition, hunger is one of the reasons that cause people to migrate from one place to another there by causing economic constraints to the host countries. Conflicts also emanate from the same as people compete for scarce resources. A lot of humanitarian agencies use most of their funds in proving food to the people suffering from hunger either in refugee camps or in other places.

As a result, governments spend a lot of money in providing humanitarian support while the same amount of money could have been used in development projects. Impacts of hunger are mostly felt in the developing countries, Asia and Sub Saharan Africa because in most cases, the problem of hunger in such regions is usually an international problem because regional governments cannot be able to deal with it single handedly ( World Vision, 2010).

Hunger being a serious problem requires no emphasis and therefore, there are some responses which are meant to mitigate the problem. Various policies have therefore been established in all related areas. For example, there are various policies that that have been established to regulate high food prices. Such measures are inclusive but not limited to tax on imports, restricting export to maintain adequate food in the country, measures to control prices of food as well as to enhance food affordability, and stabilizing prices.

Improving and increasing agricultural produce is an important measure that has been taking place especially in the developing countries meant to increase supply and eventually curb the problem of hunger. At this point, is important to note that the number of response which have be taken to reduce or eliminate the problem of hunger vary from one region to another.

In addition, every region implements the policies that can be useful in that particular region. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010 pp.32 ), a survey conducted in the year 2007 and 2008 indicated that about 50% of all the countries reduced the tax of imports on cereals and more than fifty percent adopted measures like consumer subsidies with an aim of lowering domestic food prices.

Twenty five percent of the countries imposed restrictions on exports to minimize the outflow of food and the remaining 16% had done nothing to solve the problem of high domestic food prices. It is quite unfortunate that the regions that are mostly affected by hunger like Sub Saharan Africa; Caribbean as well Latin America has established the lowest number of policies.

Although such policies are of great help locally, they have negative impacts in the international markets. For example, due to restriction on exports, the supply of food at the international markets is usually low and as a result, the prices end up increasing. Apart from that, subsidies on imports increase government expenditure thereby straining the budget.

Therefore, it is clear that some measures of price do not control neither they end up mitigating the problem since they affect other people like farmers and traders. The main cause of the problem is due to the fact that most governments are unable to protect their economy from external influences.

While looking for the solutions to the problem, it is important to note that the demand of food will continue to increase due to various factors like urban growth and development as well as the high level of income. In that case, there is a great need for increasing food production.

In addition, the intervention should aim at not only solving the current problem but also solving any shortage that may emerge in future. Therefore, all regions and especially the sub-Saharan Africa ought to focus on increasing agricultural production. Moreover, it is necessary to come up with appropriate policies to ensure that the increase in food production will solve the problem of food insecurity (National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Public Engineering Policy, 1975).

One of the problems that have been causing hunger especially in developing countries is inaccessibility to adequate food. As a result, the concerned stakeholders should look for ways and means of increasing food accessibility. For instance; it would be more helpful if the production of small scale farmers could increase because the problem cannot only help in lowering food prices in the global market but also in alleviating poverty and hunger in the rural areas.

Although incentives and agricultural inputs are important in increasing agricultural production in the rural areas, some other measures can still be used in the same areas. For instance, in a region like Africa, more areas can be irrigated and by so doing, agricultural production can increase as well ( Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010).

World hunger is a real and a serious problem not only due to its grave impacts but also due to the complexity of the whole issue. A lot of people in the whole world are exposed to hunger. A critical analysis of the problem illustrates that it not only results from low food production but it is also affected by other factors such as inaccessibility of food, high food prices and some policies established by the government.

For example, the research has indicated that some polices that control the prices of food in local markets end up increasing food prices in the global market. In the view of the fact that hunger is the underlying cause of poverty, disease and eventually death, it is important for the concerned stake holders to address the issue accordingly.

As the studies of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (2008, p. 2) indicate, the over nine million hunger stricken people can be saved only if the stake holders that are inclusive of the government, United Nations, civil societies, donors and humanitarian agencies, general public and the private sector can join hands in combating the problem.

In order to come up with lasting solutions, their efforts should be aimed at improving the agricultural sector and establishing safety nets to protect the vulnerable population. Finally, in every challenge, there is an opportunity and in that case, the high prices of food can be used as an opportunity by small scale producers to increase their produce and get more returns and thereby reduce problems like poverty which contribute to hunger. Therefore, even though the problem is complicated, viable solutions still exist.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2010). Global hunger declining, but still unacceptably high . Web.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2008). The State of Food Insecurity in the World . Web.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Economic and Social Dept. (2005). The state of food insecurity in the world, 2005: eradicating world hunger – key to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. New York: Food & Agriculture Org.

Holben, D. H. (n. d.). The Concept and Definition of Hunger and Its Relationship to Food Insecurity . Web.

National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Public Engineering Policy. ( 1975). World hunger: approaches to engineering actions : report of a seminar. Washington: National Academies.

World Hunger Education Service . (2010). World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics 2010 . Web.

World Vision. (2010). The Global Food Crisis . Web.

Young, L. (1997). World hunger. London: Routledge.

• Rearing of Cattle: Deprecating the Beef Farming
• Food Technology in Ending World Starvation
• Peter Singer in the Solution to World Hunger
• Identifying Malnutrition: Why Is It Important?
• World Hunger: Cause and Effect
• Citrus Greening Disease in The United States
• Establishment of the rye grass
• Physical Geography: Climatology and Geomorphology
• Running Speed in Dinosaurs
• The Ocean’s Rarest Mammal Vaquita – An Endangered Species
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 22). World Hunger Essay: Causes of World Hunger & How to Solve It. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-hunger/

"World Hunger Essay: Causes of World Hunger & How to Solve It." IvyPanda , 22 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/world-hunger/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'World Hunger Essay: Causes of World Hunger & How to Solve It'. 22 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "World Hunger Essay: Causes of World Hunger & How to Solve It." July 22, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-hunger/.

1. IvyPanda . "World Hunger Essay: Causes of World Hunger & How to Solve It." July 22, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-hunger/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "World Hunger Essay: Causes of World Hunger & How to Solve It." July 22, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-hunger/.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 20 December 2021

The meaning of net zero and how to get it right

• Sam Fankhauser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2100-7888 1 , 2 ,
• Stephen M. Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5737-0155 1 ,
• Myles Allen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1721-7172 2 ,
• Kaya Axelsson 1 ,
• Thomas Hale   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8871-3376 3 ,
• Cameron Hepburn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0467-7441 1 ,
• J. Michael Kendall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1486-3945 4 ,
• Radhika Khosla   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7730-8041 1 ,
• Javier Lezaun   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-3628 5 ,
• Eli Mitchell-Larson 2 ,
• Michael Obersteiner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6981-2769 6 ,
• Lavanya Rajamani 7 ,
• Rosalind Rickaby   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6095-8419 4 ,
• Nathalie Seddon 8 &
• Thom Wetzer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5728-7012 1 , 7  

Nature Climate Change volume  12 ,  pages 15–21 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

143k Accesses

345 Citations

580 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and industry
• Climate-change mitigation
• Scientific community

This article has been updated

The concept of net-zero carbon emissions has emerged from physical climate science. However, it is operationalized through social, political and economic systems. We identify seven attributes of net zero, which are important to make it a successful framework for climate action. The seven attributes highlight the urgency of emission reductions, which need to be front-loaded, and of coverage of all emission sources, including currently difficult ones. The attributes emphasize the need for social and environmental integrity. This means carbon dioxide removals should be used cautiously and the use of carbon offsets should be regulated effectively. Net zero must be aligned with broader sustainable development objectives, which implies an equitable net-zero transition, socio-ecological sustainability and the pursuit of broad economic opportunities.

Similar content being viewed by others

Evaluating the near- and long-term role of carbon dioxide removal in meeting global climate objectives

Why residual emissions matter right now

Cities and regions tackle climate change mitigation but often focus on less effective solutions

Climate policy has a new focus: net-zero emissions. Historically, climate ambition has either been formulated as a stabilized level of atmospheric concentrations (for example, in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) or as a percentage emissions reduction target (for example, in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol). Now climate ambition is increasingly expressed as a specific target date for reaching net-zero emissions, typically linked to the peak temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. Almost two-thirds of global emissions and a slightly higher share of global gross domestic product are already covered by net-zero targets 1 .

Net zero is intrinsically a scientific concept. If the objective is to keep the rise in global average temperatures within certain limits, physics implies that there is a finite budget of carbon dioxide that is allowed into the atmosphere, alongside other greenhouse gases. Beyond this budget, any further release must be balanced by removal into sinks.

The acceptable temperature rise is a societal choice, but one informed by climate science. Under the Paris Agreement, 197 countries have agreed to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and make efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. Meeting the 1.5 °C goal with 50% probability translates into a remaining carbon budget of 400–800 GtCO 2 . Staying within this carbon budget requires CO 2 emissions to peak before 2030 and fall to net zero by around 2050 2 .

However, net zero is much more than a scientific concept or a technically determined target. It is also a frame of reference through which global action against climate change can be (and is increasingly) structured and understood.

Achieving net zero requires operationalization in varied social, political and economic spheres. There are numerous ethical judgements, social concerns, political interests, fairness dimensions, economic considerations and technology transitions that need to be navigated, and several political, economic, legal and behavioural pitfalls that could derail a successful implementation of net zero.

Getting net zero, the frame of reference, right is therefore essential. This Perspective recapitulates the scientific logic behind net zero and sets out the attributes we believe are important to turn it into a successful framework for climate action across countries.

The seven attributes complement an emerging set of operational principles and criteria, which have been put forward to govern specific net-zero decisions, such as country-level target setting 3 , the design of institution-level net-zero commitments ( https://racetozero.unfccc.int/ , https://sciencebasedtargets.org/ and ref. 4 ), the management and disclosure of climate risks 5 , and the use of carbon offsets 6 .

Net zero as a scientific concept

Net zero is just a number, begging the question ‘net zero what?’ For CO 2 , the answer emerged in the late 2000s from understanding what it would take to halt the increase in global average surface temperature due to CO 2 emissions. A series of papers noted the longevity of the impact of fossil carbon emissions 7 , 8 , 9 and the monotonic, near-linear (so far) relationship between cumulative net anthropogenic CO 2 emissions and CO 2 -induced surface warming 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 . The corollary of this result is that CO 2 -induced warming halts when net anthropogenic CO 2 emissions halt (that is, CO 2 emissions reach net zero), with the level of warming determined by cumulative net emissions to that point.

Unless net CO 2 emissions then go below zero, CO 2 -induced surface warming is expected to remain elevated at this level for decades to centuries 14 . This occurs because for, and only for, time intervals of 40–200 years, the rate of atmospheric CO 2 uptake by the deep oceans (acting to reduce warming) occurs at a rate similar to the thermal adjustment of the deep oceans to raised atmospheric CO 2 (acting to increase warming) 9 , 15 .

Total anthropogenic warming is a function not only of CO 2 , but also of a range of other greenhouse gases and forcings 16 . These have different efficacies and lifetimes of influence on climate, generally shorter-lived than that of CO 2 . Non-CO 2 anthropogenic warming is therefore better determined not by cumulative emissions, but by the present-day emission rate plus a small correction for the long-term climate response to the average non-CO 2 forcing over a multi-decade to century time interval 17 . Hence, the IPCC statement “reaching and sustaining net-zero global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions and declining net non-CO 2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal timescales 2 .”

These observations have an immediate policy implication: it makes little sense to apply the net-zero concept on timescales shorter than decades. Achieving net zero through an unsustainable combination of fossil-fuel emissions and short-term removals is ultimately pointless. Carbon emissions and removals must balance over multi-decadal timescales (Fig. 1 ).

a – c , Current anthropogenic carbon flows to and from the atmosphere are not in equilibrium: emissions from fossil fuels, industrial processes and land-use change by far exceed the removal of carbon into land-use-related sinks ( a ) 16 . Net zero requires anthropogenic flows to and from the atmosphere to balance on aggregate. This necessitates a radical reduction in fossil-fuel- and land-use-related carbon emissions as well as an increase in geological and biological sinks ( b ). A durable net zero further recognizes that biological storage is limited in capacity and shorter-lived than geological storage. A durable net-zero state therefore requires that net anthropogenic flows to and from each sphere (not just the atmosphere) equal zero ( c ). Note that natural flows of carbon are not shown in this figure and involve a small net flow from the atmosphere to the biosphere when net zero is reached.

We must also accept that net-zero emissions may still be associated with some further very slow warming or cooling on longer timescales, and that the temperature implications of the net-zero concept when applied to non-CO 2 climate drivers are less clear than they are for CO 2 alone, depending on the specific mix of drivers 18 .

There are alternative interpretations of net zero. Sometimes, net zero is used simply to describe emissions trajectories consistent with 1.5 °C ( https://sciencebasedtargets.org/ ). While a helpful shorthand, this obscures the fact that halting global warming, at whatever temperature level, requires net-zero CO 2 emissions and declining non-CO 2 radiative forcing.

Alternatively, net zero is often understood to mean net-zero CO 2 -equivalent emissions aggregated using the 100-year ‘global warming potential’ metric. This cannot be related unambiguously to any temperature outcome, but is generally seen as more ambitious, and hence preferable, than ‘just’ halting human-induced global warming 19 . It may, of course, be necessary to aim for a long-term decline in global temperature. If so, the above empirical relationship remains applicable to determine what needs to be net zero to deliver this more ambitious goal. However, as we see it, the concept of net zero emerged from our understanding of what it would take to achieve a temperature goal, not vice versa.

The importance of these differences in interpretation should not be overstated: the fact that net zero needs to apply to a state of balance that can be maintained over multiple decades, meeting additional environmental and social criteria, limits the scope for compensation among different climate drivers. It also limits the scope for compensatory exchanges between different carbon pools in the atmosphere, biosphere, oceans and lithosphere.

The adoption of net-zero targets

The carbon budgets calculated by scientists apply to the global atmosphere, rather than individual entities. To turn net zero into a useful frame of reference for decision-makers, the global carbon constraint needs to be translated into individual decarbonization pathways for nation states, sub-national entities, companies and other organizations.

Setting such entity-level targets and defining how they interact requires judgement. There are many ways in which the remaining carbon budget can be managed. Although there is a considerable literature on this subject 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , in practice defining the scope, timing, fairness and relevance of entity-level net-zero targets has been left to individual emitters and self-regulated voluntary codes. This leaves open the question of how a diverse set of voluntary pledges adds up to national targets and national targets add up to the global carbon budget.

The Paris Agreement leaves it to its parties to define their own emissions pathways or nationally determined contributions to global net zero. There is no official yardstick against which the adequacy, ambition or fairness of nationally determined contributions is measured. Instead, the Paris Agreement relies on process. Regular stocktakes are intended to catalyse ambitious action and ensure that national emissions pathways will gradually converge to a global net-zero state consistent with the long-term temperature goals.

More than 120 countries have now pledged to reach net zero in some shape or form around mid-century, consistent with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. They include China, the European Union and the United States, the world’s three largest greenhouse gas emitters.

Individual organizations are effectively accounted for in the carbon targets of the countries in which they operate, but many have made their own individual net-zero pledges. In doing so, they are guided by voluntary schemes, such as Cities Race to Zero, the Net Zero Asset Owners Alliance and the Science-based Target Initiative, which encourage entities to bring down their emissions as fast as reasonably practicable and many of which are partners of the United Nations’ Race to Zero campaign ( https://racetozero.unfccc.int/ ). Progress is measured and assessed by frameworks such as CDP ( https://www.cdp.net/en ) and the Transition Pathway Initiative ( https://www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org/ ).

At the time of writing, more than 100 regional governments, 800 cities and 1,500 companies have adopted organizational net-zero targets, often considerably earlier than mid-century 1 . One in five corporations in the Forbes Global 2,000 list have set a voluntary net-zero target.

Attributes of a credible net zero

The readiness with which a growing number of countries, sub-national entities and individual organizations have made net-zero pledges speaks to the unifying and galvanizing power of the net-zero narrative. These pledges should be encouraged. However, there is concern that these often-voluntary commitments allow too much discretion in the design of net-zero pathways and may therefore not be consistent with global net zero, or with ambitious climate action more generally 24 .

Governance, accountability and reporting mechanisms are currently inadequate. Long-term ambition is often not backed up by sufficient near-term action. Many entities have not yet set out detailed plans to achieve their pledges and are opaque about the role of carbon offsets in place of cutting their own emissions 1 . The environmental and social integrity of some of these offsets is questionable. As a result, some advocates have accused these pledges of amounting to little more than ‘greenwashing’ 24 , 25 .

These concerns do not negate the scientific logic of global net zero. However, they demonstrate the need for clear guardrails to ensure the robustness of net zero as a framework for climate action. Below, we set out seven attributes that we believe a successful net-zero framework must have (Fig. 2 ).

Attributes of net zero as a frame of reference .

Attribute 1—front-loaded emission reductions

There are many different pathways to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC has identified over 200 scenarios that are consistent with either 1.5 °C or 2 °C global warming 2 . However, there are sound scientific and economic reasons to reduce emissions as much and as fast as possible.

Global temperature change is determined by cumulative emissions, that is, the total of all emissions over time, and not isolated emissions at a particular point in time (see above). How quickly emissions are reduced therefore matters. Scientists have demonstrated that every year of delay before initiating emission reductions decreases the remaining time available to reach net-zero emissions while keeping below 1.5 °C by approximately two years 26 , 27 .

Front-loading emission reductions also preserves optionality. In particular, it maintains the option to further tighten remaining carbon budgets in light of new scientific findings, for example, if carbon cycle feedbacks (such as more rapid thaw of permafrost) begin to add to anthropogenic emissions 28 , 29 .

Economic model calculations have shown that front-loading climate action, paired with long-term planning over several years, is the most cost-effective way to reach a given temperature target 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 . Earlier action helps (or would have helped) to overcome the inertia in economic systems 34 , 35 and allows learning and scale effects to unfold, bringing down technology costs 36 , 37 . It maximizes the growth potential of clean innovation and reduces the risk of investing in stranded assets, particularly in growing economies 38 , 39 , 40 .

To encourage early emission reductions, governance experts recommend the combination of long-term net-zero commitments—which set the direction of travel—with short-term interim targets, which define emissions pathways over decision-relevant time horizons. The two sets of targets are complementary and mitigate the well-known risk of time inconsistency in long-term political commitments 41 . Both at the corporate and country level, they should be anchored in robust and enforceable legal frameworks (that is, contracts, legislation or enforceable regulation) 42 , 43 .

Attribute 2—a comprehensive approach to emission reductions

A critical facet of net zero is the comprehensive emissions abatement that it implies. Under partial emissions targets, it was possible to subsume difficult emissions sources under the residual emissions that would remain. Net zero removes this option (except for the possibility of carbon removal, see attribute 3 below). It means tackling all emissions.

The traditional focus of emissions reduction strategies has been energy, and the scale-up of clean energy remains at the core of decarbonization 44 . However, important tipping points have been reached. The fall in renewable energy costs has been so steep that the transition to zero-carbon electricity now seems hard to stop 45 . The automotive industry appears to be at a similar tipping point, although the uptake of zero-emissions vehicles is still low 46 .

In most other sectors, the transition to zero carbon is still uncertain. Without diverting attention from finishing the job in the most advanced sectors, net zero is about extending the focus to ‘harder-to-treat’ sectors, such as heavy industries, buildings, food and agriculture, aviation, and mining. In most of these sectors, zero-carbon solutions exist, but they are still costly and not yet as established as incumbent technologies and infrastructures 47 .

Tackling all emissions requires an equally comprehensive approach to the involvement of stakeholders. There are signs that supportive coalitions on net zero are starting to emerge. Climate change is increasingly reaching community groups, city administrations, board rooms, regulatory agencies, central banks, international financial institutions and the courts 48 , 49 . In some countries, the climate debate has been energized by an increased role for participatory democracy in the form of citizens’ assemblies and juries 50 . This broad-based societal support will be essential for a successful net zero and requires the concept to be operationalized in ways that increase its public legitimacy.

Attribute 3—cautious use of carbon dioxide removal

In principle, net zero can be achieved through different levels of residual emissions and different forms of compensating removals. In reality, there is a strong case for a net-zero carbon balance that combines a very low level of residual emissions with low levels of multi-decadal removals.

Carbon dioxide removal will probably be constrained by cost considerations and geopolitical factors, as well as by biological, geological, technological and institutional limitations on our ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it durably and safely. There are also concerns about moral hazard risks arising from an over-reliance on carbon removal strategies, which may enable business as usual rather than the drastic scaling back of fossil-fuel use 24 .

There are other unresolved issues. In the case of biological storage through large-scale plantations, often using exotic tree species, there are concerns about trade-offs with other ecosystem services and the permanence of the carbon store given the vulnerability of these approaches to hazards such as weather fluctuations, fire and pathogens. Conversely, nature-based solutions—biodiversity-based protection, restoration and sustainable management of native ecosystems—involve fewer trade-offs and are more resilient (see attribute 6 below). An additional concern is that climate change itself might already be destabilizing some terrestrial carbon reservoirs 51 . While this arguably strengthens the case for nature-based solutions to mitigate climate risks, it also raises questions about relying on them too heavily.

In the case of geological storage, the risk of physical reversal is thought to be extremely low, but questions remain about the appropriate rate of injection and the geo-mechanical response of the reservoir 52 . The public understanding and acceptability of subsurface geological storage is also still evolving. More nascent removal options, such as soil carbon sequestration, ocean alkalinization and mineralization need further development to ascertain their safety and effectiveness 53 .

Prioritizing emission reductions neither equates to ‘reduction only’, nor does it mean delaying the ramp-up of carbon dioxide removal. Most modelled pathways to meet the Paris Agreement involve a significant scaling up of removals 2 . Given that many important technologies are still in their infancy, much investment is and will be needed to ensure that there are enough removal options for residual emissions. We need to make progress as fast as realistically possible on both emission reductions and removals.

The regulatory frameworks that will govern the deployment of removals at scale are yet to be developed. Appropriate policy signals will be required to ensure the right balance between emissions and removals and the environmental integrity of any removal solutions that are being deployed. These rules will form part of broader legal and governance frameworks on the capture, transport and storage of CO 2 , which will ensure clear accountabilities, transparent reporting, prudent risk management and transparency about the environmental characteristics of different removal options. This is essential not just environmentally, but also to maintain public support and a social and political licence for carbon removal technologies 54 .

Attribute 4—effective regulation of carbon offsets

The need for social and environmental integrity in carbon dioxide removal is linked to the integrity, and appropriate regulation, of carbon offsets. Previous experience with carbon offset markets, such as the Clean Development Mechanism or the current voluntary carbon market, suggests that the environmental integrity of carbon offsets will be problematic, unless quality standards are upgraded and scrupulously enforced 55 , 56 , 57 .

Because very few organizations and not even all countries will be able to achieve the balance between residual emissions and removal into sinks themselves, there is a need for systems that can deliver a global balance between sources and sinks.

Such arrangements could take many forms 58 , 59 . Some governments may opt to procure carbon offsets centrally, through regular purchases to balance their national carbon account. Another structure is a private market for carbon offsets. The increased ambition embodied in net-zero pledges is already driving up demand for offsets 60 , renewing concerns over their effectiveness.

Social and environmental concerns about carbon credits centre around the credibility of their purported carbon benefit, including the risk of non-additionality, the poor monitoring of emissions avoidance, reduction or removal, and the presence of unwanted side-effects (see attribute 6 below). Because net zero requires the physical balancing of residual emissions with removals, any entity using carbon credits to deliver net zero would need to purchase exclusively carbon ‘removal’ credits 6 . This poses immediate technical challenges, as the infrastructures for robust monitoring, reporting and verification of removed carbon are yet to be developed.

A key issue is the longevity of storage, which depends on both social and physical factors. As shown above, net zero demands multi-decadal storage (see ‘Net zero as a scientific concept’). Geological storage should be possible for millennia, but the timescales associated with biological carbon storage in, for example, afforestation projects, range from less than a decade to over a century depending on governance and ownership 61 , and biophysical factors. Scientific understanding of the sequestration potential of different carbon sinks is constantly evolving, which introduces a degree of inherent indeterminacy in any offset scheme.

Despite appearances to the contrary, with a number of standards in place, and a large range of independent verification agencies, the current carbon offset market and its attendant governance mechanisms do not sufficiently address these concerns. Badly conceived schemes have been accused of issuing credits for the preservation of forests that were not under threat 62 , 63 or, in the case of commercial plantations, only offer short-term high-risk carbon storage with negative outcomes for biodiversity and local communities. The scaled-up use of carbon offsets will have to be accompanied by a radical enhancement of their quality and scaled-up regulatory scrutiny.

Attribute 5—an equitable transition to net zero

Fairness is an essential aspect of climate action. The fairness of net zero depends on how the burden of meeting the global target is shared across countries and within countries (for example, between regions, industries and population groups). This is a long-standing challenge for climate action, now compounded by the need to ensure that carbon removals (for example, through nature-based solutions) bolster, rather than impede, a just transition to zero-carbon societies.

The Paris Agreement is explicit about the need for an equitable transition. It urges global peaking of emissions, but emphasizes that “peaking will take longer for developing countries” and that net zero is to be achieved “on the basis of equity” and in the context of “sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty” (Article 4(1)). The Paris Agreement does not advocate undifferentiated uptake of net-zero targets across all countries. Rather, the emphasis in the agreement on equity, sustainable development and poverty eradication suggests a thoughtful balancing of responsibilities between countries at different levels of development, a recognition of transitions tailored to “different national circumstances”, and concern for distributional impacts within a country (see also attribute 7 below).

This has at least three implications 64 . First, some countries may need to reach net zero faster to create room for others that may take longer to reach net zero. Second, every country may chart its own path to net zero tailored to its own specific national circumstances and constraints. The Paris Agreement privileges ‘national circumstances’ both by adding the clause “in light of different national circumstances” to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (Article 2(2)), and by centring its governance regime on nationally determined contributions. Third, developing countries need to be supported—in terms of finance, technology and capacity building—in reaching net zero 65 , 66 .

The transition to net zero will thus necessarily take different paths in different countries, and the dominant narrative driving each such transition will reflect a mix of priorities and efforts to harness multiple benefits, such as creating jobs, addressing local air pollution, ensuring energy security, or protecting vulnerable population groups.

These equity guardrails are key to ensuring a sense of solidarity, collective ownership and political buy-in, thus enhancing the chances of real action with global impact. They also anchor net zero in the principle of sustainable development, which balances social, economic and environmental objectives.

Attribute 6—alignment with broader socio-ecological objectives

Climate change is one of several pressing socio-ecological challenges, most of them interlinked. In some cases, climate change is a ‘threat multiplier’, exacerbating the negative impacts of other stressors (such as land-use change) on ecosystems and the communities dependent on them 67 . In others, climate change and other environmental stressors have the same root causes. For example, land-use change is both the biggest driver of biodiversity declines (accounting for approximately 30% of declines in global terrestrial habitat integrity) 68 and the second biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions (accounting for 23%) 69 .

Nature-based solutions, such as protecting or restoring natural ecosystems and sustainably managing working lands and seas, can therefore, in theory, simultaneously help limit surface warming and slow biodiversity declines while also supporting human societies in countless essential ways, including public health, livelihoods and food security 68 , 70 , 71 .

However, these multiple benefits are not guaranteed. Some activities are incorrectly badged as nature-based solutions, but are simply biological approaches to carbon storage, such as commercial plantations of exotic tree species in naturally treeless habitats. They can have negative outcomes for carbon storage, biodiversity and for local people 72 , 73 .

If nature-based solutions are to provide sustained benefits to people, the ecosystems involved must be healthy and resilient, that is, their ecological functions must be able to resist or recover from perturbations. Such ecological resilience is strongly determined by ecosystem connectivity and the genetic, functional and species richness at multiple trophic levels 74 . There is a deepening consensus about the critical importance of protecting, restoring and connecting a wide range of habitats across landscapes for the broad range of benefits they bring. There is also consensus around ensuring that nature-based solutions are designed and implemented by or in partnership with Indigenous peoples and local communities through a process that fully respects and champions local rights and knowledge, and generates local benefits (ref. 75 and https://nbsguidelines.info/ ). Thus, nature-based solutions must be biodiversity-based and people-led 71 .

Therefore, rather than narrowly pursuing one objective—carbon storage—net-zero plans must acknowledge a full range of ecosystem services and be embedded into broader strategies for socio-ecological sustainability. Shifting support for nature-based solutions from carbon-centric offsetting claims to unrestricted contributions could eliminate some of the above unintended consequences, and help protect and restore ecological resilience.

Attribute 7—pursuit of new economic opportunities

The scientific reality of a finite global carbon budget makes it easy to frame net zero as a zero-sum game. The narrative of burden sharing remains prominent in the international negotiations, and indeed how the remaining carbon space is allocated is an essential aspect of climate justice (as discussed in attribute 5 above). Yet, as attractive net-zero solutions begin to emerge, it will increasingly become clear that net zero can also be an economic opportunity 76 .

The economics literature has started to document the channels through which net-zero prosperity may materialize. In the short term, this includes the contribution zero-carbon investment can make to a sustainable economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, subject to debt constraints 66 , 77 . It also includes the removal of economically harmful market and policy failures, such as the prevalence of fossil-fuel subsidies 78 . In the longer term, zero-carbon innovation may unleash a virtuous cycle of investment, renewal and growth 35 , 76 .

Realizing these opportunities is key to a successful net-zero transition. In the short term, however, the pursuit of economic opportunities will be hindered by structural rigidities in the economy. The net-zero transition requires large-scale changes in the way economies are run, the skills they demand and the capital assets they require.

In developing countries, which are less locked into high-carbon activities, this creates a need to proactively train a young workforce in the skills of the twenty-first century and to make long-lived investment decisions with net zero in mind, which may affect returns 79 . In industrialized countries, it will create short-term pressure on some workers, who may have to be reskilled and redeployed 80 , and the risk of stranded assets in high-carbon industries 38 .

Addressing these transition risks is an integral part of net-zero prosperity. There are only a few examples of successful industrial transitions, such as in Germany’s Ruhr region. They suggest that a just transition is possible, but it requires close collaboration between government, industry, labour unions and local communities, and substantial investment in education, skills and social protection 81 .

Conclusions

Limiting the rise in global average temperatures to whatever level ultimately requires a balance between the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and its removal into sinks. The growth in net-zero commitments from countries, corporations and sub-national entities suggests that decision-makers increasingly understand this scientific reality.

This Perspective offers a series of interpretations of what net zero means and how it should be achieved. These interpretations ensure consistency with global temperature goals while embedding net zero into socio-political and legal contexts. We argue that it is possible to align net zero with sustainable development objectives, allow for different stages of development, and secure zero-carbon prosperity.

However, there are some clear constraints. Net-zero commitments are not an alternative to urgent and comprehensive emissions cuts. Indeed, net zero demands greater focus on eliminating difficult emissions sources than has so far been the case. The ‘net’ in net zero is essential, but the need for social and environmental integrity imposes firm constraints on the scope, timing and governance of both carbon dioxide removal and carbon offsets.

Not all these aspects are as yet sufficiently understood. The socio-political interpretation of net zero is therefore also a rich research agenda, and it will require input from many disciplines, from climate science, biology and geology to anthropology, law and economics.

There are clear risks of getting net zero wrong. However, the science leaves no alternatives if global temperature is to be stabilized. If interpreted right and governed well, net zero can be an effective frame of reference for climate action.

Change history

09 march 2022.

In the version of this article initially published, the width of the outflowing arrow in the bottom-left of Fig. 1c (Lithosphere to Atmosphere) was oversized relative to the balance of the two inflowing arrows, and has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

Black, R. et al. Taking Stock: A Global Assessment of Net Zero Targets (ECIU and Oxford Net Zero, 2021).

IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5   °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

Levin, K., Rich, D., Ross, K., Fransen, T. & Elliott, C. Designing and Communicating Net-Zero Targets (World Resources Institute, 2020).

Navigating the Nuances of Net-Zero Targets (New Climate Institute & Data-Driven EnviroLab, 2020).

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD, 2017); https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/

Allen, M. et al. The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting (Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, Univ. of Oxford, 2020).

Archer, D. Fate of fossil fuel CO 2 in geologic time. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 110 , C09S05 (2005).

Article   Google Scholar  

Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35 , L04705 (2008).

Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R. & Friedlingstein, P. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 1704–1709 (2009).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Allen, M. R. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458 , 1163–1166 (2009).

Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458 , 1158–1162 (2009).

Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459 , 829–832 (2009).

Zickfeld, K., Eby, M., Matthews, H. D. & Weaver, A. J. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 16129–16134 (2009).

MacDougall, A. H. et al. Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO 2 . Biogeosciences 17 , 2987–3016 (2020).

Smith, M. A., Cain, M. & Allen, M. R. Further improvement of warming-equivalent emissions calculation. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci 4 , 19 (2021).

IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, in the press).

Zickfeld, K. & Herrington, T. The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 , 31001 (2015).

Robinson, M. & Shine, T. Achieving a climate justice pathway to 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 564–569 (2018).

Rogelj, J., Geden, O., Cowie, A. & Reisinger, A. Three ways to improve net-zero emissions targets. Nature 591 , 365–368 (2021).

Agarwal, A. & Narain, S. Global Warming in an Unequal World (Centre for Science and Environment, 1991).

Agarwal, A., Narain, S. & Sharma, A. in Environmental Justice: Discourses in International Political Economy (eds Byrne, J. et al) 171–199 (Routledge, 2017).

Ringius, L., Torvanger, A. & Underdal, A. Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2 , 1–22 (2002).

Robinson, M. Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience, and the Fight for a Sustainable Future (Bloomsbury, 2018).

Dyke, J., Watson, R. & Knorr, W. Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap. The Conversation (22 April 2021); https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368

Chasing Carbon Unicorns: The Deception of Carbon Markets and ‘Net Zero’ (Friends of the Earth, 2021).

Allen, M. R. & Stocker, T. F. Impact of delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4 , 23–26 (2014).

Leach, N. J. et al. Current level and rate of warming determine emissions budgets under ambitious mitigation. Nat. Geosci. 11 , 574–579 (2018).

Turetsky, M. R. et al. Carbon release through abrupt permafrost thaw. Nat. Geosci. 13 , 138–143 (2020).

Gasser, T. et al. Path-dependent reductions in CO 2 emission budgets caused by permafrost carbon release. Nat. Geosci. 11 , 830–835 (2018).

The Sixth Carbon Budget: Methodology Report (Committee on Climate Change, 2020).

Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3 , 515–527 (2018).

Wilensky, M. Climate change in the courts: an assessment of non-U.S. climate litigation. Duke Environ. Law Policy Forum 26 , 131–179 (2015).

Google Scholar  

Duan, H. et al. Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5 °C warming limit. Science 372 , 378–385 (2021).

Aghion, P., Dechezleprêtre, A., Hemous, D., Martin, R. & van Reenen, J. Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry. J. Polit. Econ. 124 , 1–51 (2016).

Aghion, P., Hepburn, C., Teytelboym, A. & Zenghelis, D. in Handbook on Green Growth (ed. Fouquet, R.) Ch. 4 (Edward Elgar, 2019).

Nordhaus, W. D. The perils of the learning model for modeling endogenous technological change. Energy J. 35 , 1–13 (2014).

Söderholm, P. & Sundqvist, T. Empirical challenges in the use of learning curves for assessing the economic prospects of renewable energy technologies. Renew. Energy 32 , 2559–2578 (2007).

Caldecott, B. Stranded Assets and the Environment: Risk, Resilience and Opportunity (Routledge, 2018).

Pfeiffer, A., Millar, R., Hepburn, C. & Beinhocker, E. The ‘2 °C capital stock’ for electricity generation: committed cumulative carbon emissions from the electricity generation sector and the transition to a green economy. Appl. Energy 179 , 1395–1408 (2016).

Creutzig, F. et al. Beyond technology: demand-side solutions for climate change mitigation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41 , 173–198 (2016).

Hovi, J., Sprinz, D. F. & Underdal, A. Implementing long-term climate policy: time inconsistency, domestic politics, international anarchy. Glob. Environ. Polit. 9 , 20–39 (2009).

Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S. & Nachmany, M. Trends in Climate Change Legislation (Edward Elgar, 2017).

Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S. & Finnegan, J. J. The impact of strategic climate legislation: evidence from expert interviews on the UK Climate Change Act. Clim. Policy 21 , 251–263 (2021).

Making Clean Electrification Possible: 30 Years to Electrify the Global Economy (Energy Transition Commission, 2021).

Renewables 2020: Analysis and Forecasts to 2025 (IEA, 2020).

Global EV Outlook 2020 (IEA, 2020).

Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science 360 , eaas9793 (2018).

Dikau, S. & Volz, U. Central bank mandates, sustainability objectives and the promotion of green finance. Ecol. Econ. 184 , 107022 (2021).

Eskander, S., Fankhauser, S. & Setzer, J. Global lessons from climate change legislation and litigation. Environ. Energy Policy Econ. 2 , 44–82 (2021).

Willis, R. Too Hot to Handle? The Democratic Challenge of Climate Change (Policy Press, 2020).

Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579 , 80–87 (2020).

Pianta, S., Rinscheid, A. & Weber, E. U. Carbon capture and storage in the United States: perceptions, preferences, and lessons for policy. Energy Policy 151 , 112149 (2021).

Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 63002 (2018).

Lezaun, J., Healey, P., Krueger, T. & Smith, S. M. Governing carbon dioxide removal in the UK: lessons learned and challenges ahead. Front. Clim. 89 , 684063 (2021).

Wara, M. Is the global carbon market working? Nature 445 , 595–596 (2007).

Victor, D. G. & Cullenward, D. Making carbon markets work. Sci. Am. 297 , 70–77 (2007).

Haya, B. et al. Managing uncertainty in carbon offsets: insights from California’s standardized approach. Clim. Policy 20 , 1112–1126 (2020).

Greenhouse Gas Removal Policy Options (Vivid Economics, 2019); https://www.vivideconomics.com/casestudy/greenhouse-gas-removal-policy-options/

Bednar, J. et al. Operationalizing the net-negative carbon economy. Nature 596 , 377–383 (2021).

Future Demand, Supply and Prices for Voluntary Carbon Credits: Keeping the Balance (Trove Research, 2021); https://trove-research.com/research-and-insight/carbon-credit-demand-supply-and-prices-june-2021/

Carton, W., Asiyanbi, A., Beck, S., Buck, H. J. & Lund, J. F. Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11 , e671 (2020).

Elgin, B. These trees are not what they seem. Bloomberg Green (9 December 2020).

Song, L. Why carbon credits for forest preservation may be worse than nothing. ProPublica (22 May 2019).

Dubash, N. K., Winkler, H. & Rajamani, L. Developing countries need to chart their own course to net zero emissions. The Conversation (4 May 2021); https://theconversation.com/developing-countries-need-to-chart-their-own-course-to-net-zero-emissions-159655

Buchner, B. et al. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019 (Climate Policy Initiative, 2019).

Dibley, A., Wetzer, T. & Hepburn, C. National COVID debts: climate change imperils countries’ ability to repay. Nature 592 , 184–187 (2021).

Newbold, T. Future effects of climate and land-use change on terrestrial vertebrate community diversity under different scenarios. Proc. R. Soc. B 285 , 20180792 (2018).

Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Diaz, S. & Ngo, H. T. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (WMO, 2019).

Girardin, C. A. J. et al. Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet—if we act now. Nature 593 , 191–194 (2021).

Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27 , 1518–1546 (2021).

Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568 , 25–28 (2019).

Veldman, J. W. et al. Comment on ‘The global tree restoration potential’. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay7976 (2019).

Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486 , 59–67 (2012).

Guidance for Using the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions (IUCN, 2020).

Stern, N. Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change (MIT Press, 2015).

Hepburn, C., O’Callaghan, B., Stern, N., Stiglitz, J. & Zenghelis, D. Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 36 , S359–S381 (2020).

Coady, D., Parry, I., Sears, L. & Shang, B. How Large are Global Energy Subsidies? (IMF, 2015).

Bhattacharya, A., Oppenheim, J. & Stern, N. Driving sustainable development through better infrastructure: key elements of a transformation program. Brookings (10 July 2015); https://www.brookings.edu/research/driving-sustainable-development-through-better-infrastructure-key-elements-of-a-transformation-program/

Bowen, A., Kuralbayeva, K. & Tipoe, E. L. Characterising green employment: the impacts of ‘greening’ on workforce composition. Energy Econ. 72 , 263–275 (2018).

Gambhir, A., Green, F. & Pearson, P. J. G. Towards a Just and Equitable Low-Carbon Energy Transition Grantham Institute Briefing Paper No. 26 (Imperial College, 2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors are part of Oxford Net Zero, which is supported by the University of Oxford’s Strategic Research Fund. We also acknowledge funding from ClimateWorks (grant 19-1501), the Economic and Social Research Council (grant ES/S008381/1), EU Horizon 2020 (grants 869192 and 869357) and the Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/V013106/1). The charts were produced by S. Littlewood.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Sam Fankhauser, Stephen M. Smith, Kaya Axelsson, Cameron Hepburn, Radhika Khosla & Thom Wetzer

School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Sam Fankhauser, Myles Allen & Eli Mitchell-Larson

Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

• Thomas Hale

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

J. Michael Kendall & Rosalind Rickaby

Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Javier Lezaun

Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Michael Obersteiner

Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Lavanya Rajamani & Thom Wetzer

Nature-based Solutions Initiative, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Nathalie Seddon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The production of the manuscript was coordinated by S.F., who also had overall editorial responsibility. All authors contributed to the content, structure and framing of the article. Drafting was led by K.A., M.A., S.F., L.R., N.S. and S.M.S.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sam Fankhauser .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Hongbo Duan, Daniel Huppmann and Sally Benson for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fankhauser, S., Smith, S.M., Allen, M. et al. The meaning of net zero and how to get it right. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12 , 15–21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01245-w

Download citation

Received : 19 May 2021

Accepted : 09 November 2021

Published : 20 December 2021

Issue Date : January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01245-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Turning a groundswell of climate action into ground rules for net zero.

• Thom Wetzer
• Rupert Stuart-Smith

Nature Climate Change (2024)

Prioritize environmental sustainability in use of AI and data science methods

• Caroline Jay
• David Topping

Nature Geoscience (2024)

Shining light on residual emissions for cities

• Giulia Ulpiani
• Nadja Vetters
• Christian Thiel

Emergent constraints on carbon budgets as a function of global warming

• Peter M. Cox
• Mark S. Williamson
• Rebecca M. Varney

Nature Communications (2024)

All-solid-state lithium–sulfur batteries through a reaction engineering lens

• Jung Tae Kim

Nature Chemical Engineering (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Essay on Zero Hunger

Students are often asked to write an essay on Zero Hunger in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Zero Hunger

Understanding zero hunger.

Zero Hunger is a global aim to end all forms of hunger and malnutrition. It’s one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations.

Why is Zero Hunger Important?

Hunger leads to malnutrition, which can cause health problems. Achieving Zero Hunger means ensuring everyone has enough nutritious food, promoting better health.

How Can We Achieve Zero Hunger?

We can contribute by reducing food waste, supporting local farmers, and promoting sustainable farming. Everyone’s effort counts towards achieving Zero Hunger.

Also check:

250 Words Essay on Zero Hunger

Introduction to zero hunger.

Zero Hunger, a critical initiative of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aims to eradicate all forms of hunger and malnutrition by 2030. It emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive approach, focusing on sustainable food production, improved nutrition, and increased agricultural productivity.

The Imperative of Zero Hunger

The urgency of Zero Hunger is underscored by the stark reality that nearly 690 million people worldwide go to bed hungry each night. The situation is exacerbated by factors such as climate change, economic disparities, and global pandemics. Achieving Zero Hunger is not merely about addressing hunger, but also about ensuring health, stimulating economic growth, and preserving our planet.

Strategies for Achieving Zero Hunger

Achieving Zero Hunger requires a multifaceted strategy. Sustainable agriculture, for instance, is a key pillar, promoting efficient use of resources and reducing the impact on the environment. Additionally, fostering resilient agricultural practices can help communities withstand climate-related shocks and natural disasters.

Challenges and the Way Forward

Despite the clear roadmap, the journey to Zero Hunger is riddled with obstacles. These include political instability, resource constraints, and the complexity of coordinating global efforts. Overcoming these challenges necessitates robust global cooperation, innovative solutions, and unwavering commitment.

In conclusion, Zero Hunger is an ambitious yet achievable goal. It demands collective action, sustained commitment, and innovative strategies. As we move towards a world free of hunger, we also pave the way for a healthier, more equitable, and sustainable future.

500 Words Essay on Zero Hunger

Introduction.

Zero Hunger is a global initiative aimed at eradicating hunger and malnutrition by 2030. It is one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. The objective of Zero Hunger goes beyond addressing hunger, to include the commitment to ensure access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round for everyone.

Understanding the Zero Hunger Challenge

The importance of zero hunger.

Achieving Zero Hunger is crucial for the health and wellbeing of individuals and societies. Malnutrition and hunger are linked to poor physical and mental health, lower educational attainment, and reduced economic productivity. Moreover, hunger perpetuates a cycle of poverty and inequality, as those who are malnourished often struggle to work and learn, further limiting their opportunities. Therefore, eradicating hunger is not just a moral imperative, but also a necessary step towards achieving sustainable development and social justice.

Challenges in Achieving Zero Hunger

Despite the global commitment to Zero Hunger, progress has been slow and uneven. Conflict, climate change, and economic downturns are among the major barriers to achieving this goal. For instance, climate change threatens food production through increased droughts, floods, and storms, while conflict disrupts food distribution and access. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated food insecurity, pushing millions more into hunger.

Strategies to Achieve Zero Hunger

Zero Hunger is a vital goal that demands urgent and collective action. It requires not only addressing immediate food needs, but also tackling the root causes of hunger and building a sustainable food system. While the challenges are immense, the potential benefits of achieving Zero Hunger – healthier populations, stronger economies, and more equitable societies – make it a goal worth striving for. As global citizens, we all have a role to play in achieving Zero Hunger and creating a world where everyone has access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Essay on Zero Hunger in English (150, 200, 250, 500 Words)

Zero Hunger is not just a goal; it’s a moral imperative. With millions worldwide suffering from food insecurity, addressing hunger is essential for global well-being and sustainable development. Together, we must strive for a world without hunger.

Here, we’ve presented essays on “Zero Hunger” in 150, 200, 250 & 500 word samples. All the essays will be helpful for students of all classes i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & class 12.

Table of Contents

Essay on Zero Hunger in 150 Words

Introduction.

Zero Hunger is a pressing global issue that demands urgent attention. Despite advancements, millions suffer from malnutrition daily. Hunger not only affects physical health but also impedes economic and social development. Addressing this challenge requires collaborative efforts from governments, NGOs, and individuals.

The Impact of Zero Hunger

In regions plagued by hunger, the consequences are dire. Children bear the brunt, facing stunted growth and cognitive impairments. Families struggle to break free from the cycle of poverty perpetuated by food insecurity. Moreover, hunger exacerbates inequalities, widening the gap between the affluent and the marginalized.

Strategies for Achieving Zero Hunger

Effective agricultural policies play a pivotal role in combating hunger. Investing in sustainable farming practices and improving access to nutritious food are essential steps. Additionally, empowering local communities through education and employment opportunities fosters self-reliance and resilience against food shortages.

Zero Hunger is not an unattainable dream but a tangible goal within reach. By prioritizing food security and implementing holistic strategies, we can create a world where no one sleeps hungry. Together, let us strive towards a future where every individual has access to an adequate and nutritious diet, ensuring a healthier and more equitable society.

Zero Hunger Essay in 200 Words

Zero Hunger remains a critical global challenge, with millions enduring food insecurity daily. Despite progress, the persistence of hunger undermines efforts for sustainable development, affecting individuals, communities, and nations worldwide.

The Scale of the Issue

Hunger’s impact is multifaceted, extending beyond mere physical discomfort. It hampers children’s growth and cognitive development, perpetuating intergenerational cycles of poverty. Moreover, malnutrition weakens immune systems, exacerbating health crises and hindering economic productivity.

Addressing Root Causes

Tackling hunger necessitates a multifaceted approach. Sustainable agricultural practices, such as crop diversification and efficient resource management, are crucial. Equally important is enhancing access to education and employment, empowering communities to break free from the grip of poverty and food insecurity.

Collaboration for Change

Achieving Zero Hunger demands collaboration on a global scale. Governments must prioritize food security in policy agendas, allocating resources for agricultural development and social welfare programs. Non-governmental organizations play a vital role in delivering aid and advocating for systemic change. Individuals can contribute through donations, volunteering, and supporting sustainable consumption practices.

In conclusion, Zero Hunger is not merely an idealistic aspiration but an urgent imperative. By addressing the root causes of hunger and fostering collaboration among stakeholders, we can create a future where everyone has access to nutritious food. Let us commit to this noble endeavor, ensuring a world where hunger is a relic of the past, and all can thrive.

Essay Writing on Zero Hunger in 250 Words

In the quest for Zero Hunger, the statistics paint a stark reality: approximately 690 million people worldwide suffer from chronic hunger, with millions more facing food insecurity. Despite progress, the global community is far from achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2, which aims to end hunger by 2030. This pervasive issue not only threatens individual well-being but also undermines efforts for social and economic progress.

The Human Cost of Hunger

Behind these numbers lie stories of hardship and resilience. Malnutrition remains a leading cause of death for children under five, claiming nearly 3 million lives annually. In addition to its immediate health impacts, hunger perpetuates poverty, hindering access to education and economic opportunities for millions of families worldwide.

Bridging the Food Gap

Addressing hunger requires a multifaceted approach. Sustainable agriculture practices, such as agroecology and climate-resilient farming, are essential for ensuring long-term food security. Moreover, investing in social safety nets, such as food assistance programs and nutrition education, can provide immediate relief to those in need.

Empowering Communities

Central to the fight against hunger is empowering vulnerable communities. By providing access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities, individuals can break free from the cycle of poverty and build brighter futures for themselves and their families.

Global Collaboration

Achieving Zero Hunger demands collective action. International cooperation is crucial for mobilizing resources, sharing best practices, and addressing the root causes of hunger on a global scale. Governments, non-governmental organizations, and civil society must work together to implement effective policies and programs that prioritize food security for all.

Innovation and Technology

Innovations in agriculture and food production hold promise for overcoming hunger challenges. From precision farming techniques to plant-based alternatives, technology can increase food yields and enhance nutritional diversity, particularly in regions prone to food shortages.

In conclusion, the journey towards Zero Hunger is fraught with challenges, but it is a journey worth undertaking. By leveraging data-driven strategies, fostering collaboration, and prioritizing the needs of the most vulnerable, we can create a world where no one goes to bed hungry. Let us rally together, with determination and compassion, to build a future where food security is a reality for all.

Writing an Essay on Zero Hunger in 500 Words

Zero Hunger stands as one of humanity’s most urgent challenges, with approximately 690 million people worldwide still facing chronic hunger, according to the latest data. Despite significant progress in recent decades, hunger remains a formidable barrier to global development and human well-being. As the world grapples with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of food insecurity has only been exacerbated, underscoring the need for concerted action to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2 – to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture by 2030.

Understanding the Scope of Hunger

The scope of hunger extends beyond mere caloric intake; it encompasses a complex interplay of socio-economic factors. Malnutrition, for instance, affects over 2 billion people worldwide, with devastating consequences for health and productivity. Among children under five, nearly 45% suffer from stunted growth due to chronic malnutrition, impairing their physical and cognitive development. Furthermore, food insecurity disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, including women, children, and rural communities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and inequality.

The Impact on Global Development

Hunger poses a significant obstacle to achieving broader development objectives. It impedes economic growth, with estimates suggesting that undernutrition could cost the global economy up to $3.5 trillion per year in lost productivity and healthcare expenses by 2030. Moreover, food insecurity exacerbates social inequalities, fueling unrest and instability in vulnerable regions. The consequences of hunger ripple across generations, trapping communities in a cycle of poverty and deprivation.

Root Causes and Systemic Solutions

Addressing hunger requires a comprehensive approach that addresses its root causes. Inadequate access to nutritious food, limited agricultural productivity, and environmental degradation are among the key challenges that must be tackled. Sustainable agriculture practices, such as agroecology and regenerative farming, offer promising solutions for enhancing food security while mitigating environmental impacts. Additionally, investing in rural infrastructure, market access, and social safety nets can bolster resilience and alleviate food insecurity.

Empowering Communities and Individuals

Empowering communities and individuals is essential for sustainable progress towards Zero Hunger. Access to education, particularly for girls and women, plays a pivotal role in breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition. Moreover, supporting smallholder farmers through training, technology, and access to credit can enhance agricultural productivity and livelihoods. By strengthening local capacity and fostering inclusive development, communities can become more resilient to food shocks and crises.

International Cooperation and Partnerships

Achieving Zero Hunger requires collective action on a global scale. International cooperation and partnerships are crucial for mobilizing resources, sharing knowledge, and coordinating efforts across borders. Initiatives such as the World Food Programme and the UN’s Zero Hunger Challenge exemplify the importance of multilateral collaboration in addressing food insecurity and malnutrition. Furthermore, partnerships between governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector can catalyze innovation and drive sustainable solutions.

Harnessing Technology and Innovation

Innovation and technology play a vital role in overcoming hunger challenges. From precision agriculture techniques to climate-resilient crops, technological innovations hold promise for increasing agricultural productivity and resilience in the face of climate change. Furthermore, digital tools and platforms can improve access to market information, financial services, and agricultural extension services, empowering farmers to make informed decisions and optimize resource use.

In conclusion, achieving Zero Hunger is both a moral imperative and a strategic imperative for global development. By addressing the root causes of hunger, empowering communities, and fostering international cooperation, we can build a more resilient and equitable food system. As we work towards the ambitious goal of ending hunger by 2030, let us renew our commitment to ensuring that every person has access to nutritious food and the opportunity to thrive. Only through collective action and sustained investment can we create a world where hunger is a relic of the past, and all individuals can realize their full potential.

Related Posts

Essay on zoo in english (150, 200, 250, 500 words).

• May 26, 2024

Essay on Zero in English (150, 200, 250, 500 Words)

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

Name  *

Email  *

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

Post Comment

Search form

• Our experts

Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely Outcome

• This essay evaluates past carbon emission reduction and the feasibility of eliminating fossil fuels to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050.
• Despite international agreements, government spending and regulations, and technological advancements, global fossil fuel consumption surged by 55 percent between 1997 and 2023. And the share of fossil fuels in global energy consumption has only decreased from nearly 86 percent in 1997 to approximately 82 percent in 2022.
• The first global energy transition, from traditional biomass fuels such as wood and charcoal to fossil fuels, started more than two centuries ago and unfolded gradually. That transition remains incomplete, as billions of people still rely on traditional biomass energies for cooking and heating.
• The scale of today’s energy transition requires approximately 700 exajoules of new non-carbon energies by 2050, which needs about 38,000 projects the size of BC’s Site C or 39,000 equivalents of Muskrat Falls.
• Converting energy-intensive processes (e.g., iron smelting, cement, and plastics) to non-fossil alternatives requires solutions not yet available for largescale use.
• The energy transition imposes unprecedented demands for minerals including copper and lithium, which require substantial time to locate and develop mines.
• To achieve net-zero carbon, affluent countries will incur costs of at least 20 percent of their annual GDP.
• While global cooperation is essential to achieve decarbonization by 2050, major emitters such as the United States, China, and Russia have conflicting interests.
• To eliminate carbon emissions by 2050, governments face unprecedented technical, economic and political challenges, making rapid and inexpensive transition impossible.

More from this study

Subscribe to the Fraser Institute

Get the latest news from the Fraser Institute on the latest research studies, news and events.

Jahangir's World Times First Comprehensive Magazine for students/teachers of competitive exams and general readers as well.

• CSS Result 2020
• Attention CSS 2020 Aspirants! CSS 2018 Examiners Report Also, read in-depth analysis on CSS 2019 Exam by Team JWT
• CE-2019- Written Part Result
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) Latest Update
• India's Bloody Borders | CSS Current Affairs | A Fortnightly Glance | Ahmed Ali Naqvi | World Times
• World Times April 2020 Urdu Editon in PDF
• World Times April 2020 English Edition in PDF
• World Times May 2020 Urdu Edition
• Guss Paper PMS -2020 of URDU & ISLAMIAT
• 4th JWT Essay Competition

Global Zero: world without nuclear weapons

February 4, 2011 Essay , February 2011 Leave a comment

It is clear that if we don’t achieve ‘Global Zero, our planet is always at risk, of being converted into a Ground Zero.

Man has achieved tremendous progress in developing scientific technology for the welfare and well-being of humanity, but simultaneously, he has also developed weapons for his own destruction. To acquire power’ the most flagrant of all passions’ he created weapons including explosive, chemical, biological and nuclear. Among them, the nuclear weapons are the most destructive causing mass destruction. Though, these have been used once in history during the World War-II, these have created a perpetual fear of annihilation among all humans. Now, with the evolving of a multi-cultural globalised world, there is an increase in momentum to develop a consensus for achieving Global Zero- elimination of all nuclear weapons. To succeed in this initiative, the need is to sit together, contemplate, devise a strategy and agree to divert this capability from weapons to welfare of humanity. The most resounding argument, generating urge to achieve this surpassable task lies in the brief history of apocalyptic perils of nuclear weapons.

The perils of atomic weapons were manifest as the two cities of Japan were wreaked when the bombs were dropped on them. In Hiroshima, some 75,000 people were immediately killed by blast, fire and radiation. Another 70,000 died by the end of 1945.

Three days later in Nagasaki, plutonium bomb killed about 40,000 people immediately, another 75,000 died by the end of 1945. Five days after Nagasaki’s flattening, Japan surrendered. But the impact didn’t stop there. Thousands people died in following years due to radiation. Tens of thousands became disabled. Not only the people present at the time suffered but the ‘unborn’ as well. Thousands others were born with deformities and genetic disorders due to which successive generations have suffered.

The need to eliminate nuclear weapons is not only because these can be used for destruction in war but also because they pose equal danger in times of peace. There have been ‘Close Calls’ to annihilation in various occasions. [In 1995] President Boris Yeltsin was informed that a nuclear missile was speeding towards the heart of Russia. Russian nuclear forces, already on hair-trigger alert, were put in even higher alert. Russian policy called for a ‘launch on warning. The fate of the planet hung in the balance. Yeltsin wisely waited. And within those moments, the alarm declared false. ‘An unimaginable nuclear disaster had barely been avoided’ declared America’s Defense Monitor, Center for Defence Information, December 26, 1999.

Another, important incident took place in the US on August 31, 2007.  Air Force crew loaded six live nuclear warheads onto a 8-52 Bomber and flew from ‘Minot Air Force Base’ in North Dakota to ‘Barksdak Air Force Base’ in cruising over the country’s heartland (Around 15 states). Each warhead was 10 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In analysis report, America’s Defence science Board (DSB) revealed that ‘six of the planet’s most powerful weapons were missing and no one noticed until they had landed in Louisiana after flight of 3 ½ hours.’ The report concluded that ‘human error was at the heart of the incident.

This incident underscores the risk of accidental nuclear explosion threat due to ‘human error’ even in the country of its origin and in the ‘peace times’. It is important to note that this incident occurred in the US, which claims to employ world’s best safety standards for nuclear weapons. While the US itself keeps expressing concern over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

wisdom calls for elimination of all nuclear weapons in order to make the future of humanity’ our generation and our future generations ‘ safe and secure.

Moreover, the presence of nuclear weapons in some states provides reason and pretext for other ambitious nations to acquire the same status. This unwise race has itself caused devastating effects on economy and human development, particularly in developing countries.

One of the major world powers, the USSR too, collapsed under the heavy burden of extraordinary defence spending on economy. The developing countries like India, Pakistan, and North Korea also joined the race. They did succeed in acquiring nuclear weapons but their poor population is suffering from abject poverty. A country like Pakistan, which is merely surviving at the edge of economic insolvency, could gain much economic growth, had the resources been utilised for the welfare of people. Iranians are bearing the sanctions imposed by western powers through the UN for pursuing nuclear technology, which according to them, is aimed at acquiring weapons.

Besides, the argument to possess nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence capability has also lost its ground. More the states acquire ‘nukes’, more the risk of their use builds-up. Moreover, the presence of nukes always poses risk of slipping into the hands of terrorists. Admiral Noel Gayler, a former commander-in-chief of the Pacific Command of US Navy, asks, ‘Is difference of nuclear weapons still possible?’  He answers, ‘No. He also questions, ‘Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security? He answers, ‘No, it enhances it.’ As human ‘beings are fallible, deterrence is not a perfect system. It can be failed by human error, accident, miscalculation or simply miscommunication. ‘Does it make sense to risk the future of our cities and even the human species on an unprovable theory?’ David Krieger, founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

This is why, fortunately, the initiative of achieving peace of the world without nuclear weapons is gaining support among both the senior military and the political leaders of the world. The increasing number of leaders have realised what Abraham Lincoln said, ‘We must think anew and act anew. Recently many world leaders have expressed willingness to move towards this goal. British Prime Minister Gorden Brown said in March 2008 that the UK was ready to work for ‘a world that is free from nuclear weapons. On December 5, 2008, Nicholas Sarkozy, the French President, while holding EU Presidency, wrote a letter to UN General Secretary, outlining an EU plan to advance global progress toward nuclear disarmament.

Negotiations between Washington and Moscow should start to cut back nuclear stockpiles to minimum. According to moderate estimates, the US and Russia have about 26000 of total 27000 weapons in the world.

• Massive reduction in Russian-US arsenal.
• Complete elimination to zero by all states.
• Establishing verification system to keep check.
• International management of the fuel cycle.

There are many positive indicators which indicate why this goal is achievable. First; there is a strong historical support. Throughout the nuclear age, even at the height of the Cold War, leaders foresaw a day when the world could be free of nukes. In 1986, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan agreed that: ‘A nuclear war could never be won and must never be fought. ‘In 1999, Chinese President Jiang Zemin stated: ‘There is no reason why nuclear weapons should not be comprehensively banned and completely destroyed.

Second; as Jiang Zemin had emphasised in his statement, ‘What it takes to reach this objective is no more than a strong political will. ‘The world leaders agree with the idea of a world without nukes and have the means to achieve it. What they only need is the ‘Political will. Some analysts argue that even if the major world powers agree to eliminate nuclear weapons, country like Iran might not agree to abandon its ambition. Though Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions is a fallacy, there is a strong reason why Iran would follow the course. If there is growing support by nuclear powers and public opinion worldwide, I think it becomes harder for any government, including Iran, to cross that barrier, said Richard Burt, who was Washington’s Chief negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) talks in the early 1990s. Naturally, no country can afford to be on the one side and whole of the world on the other.

Third; there is a strong support among majority of the people around the world. A poll of 21 countries conducted by Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), USA, shows that global public opinion is overwhelmingly in favours of an international agreement for eliminating all nuclear weapons. 76 per cent of respondents, across all countries polled, favour such an agreement. As the public opinion tends to direct the policies of governments, it is likely that the leaders would come to the table.

Fourth; at this time particular, there is a new and great opportunity. US President Barak Obama and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have signalled to work on nuclear disarmament. The former declared, ‘This is the moment to begin the works of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons. Similarly, Russian Prime Minister Putin expressed in a speech in September 2008 to ‘Close this Pandora’s Box.

This new and unprecedented political support from the heads of the world’s most important governments’ for zero nuclear weapons has made this goal possible. This moment offers both the possibilities and dangers. Possibilities; because of new leadership in the US which appears to support the goal of nuclear abolition. Dangers; because, if this moment passes without action, then the nuclear-race could quickly gather pace with many more states acquiring weapons and the risk of weapons falling into the hands of terrorists would increase.

This opportunity must be seized. It is the time for a new beginning to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. This moment calls for embracing possibilities and dispelling dangers. The phased and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons is possible. Here are some of the steps needed to achieve this goal:

Firstly; the ratification of Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The NPT, which was sponsored by the US, UK and the USSR, was aimed ‘to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapon technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. The treaty was signed by 187 states and was ratified in 1975. However, the US, its sponsors, did not ratify it. Other four countries which have not signed it are: India, Pakistan, Israel and Cuba. Similarly, CTBT, introduced in 1995, has not been ratified by many states, including the US. It is strongly felt that if the US ratifies these treaties, others would follow the course. ‘Early the US ratification would do much to encourage the few remaining states to follow suit, wrote David Miliband, UK’s former Foreign Secretary, in The Washington Post on December 8, 2008.

Secondly; negotiations between Washington and Moscow should start to cut back nuclear stockpiles to minimum. According to moderate estimates, the US and Russia have about 26000 of total 27000 weapons in the world. As both these states possess largest stockpiles’ 96 per cent of all the nuclear weapons in the world’ they should reduce their arsenal in the first step. ‘Process needs to start with American and Russian leaderships’ argues Richard Burt.

This is an absolutely insensible approach to accumulate that much big arsenal that fraction of which can destroy the whole world. ‘When a country can be destroyed by a dozen weapons, its own possession of thousands of weapons gains no security’ says Admiral Noel Gayler. The huge possession of nukes itself puts larger responsibility on the US and Russia to initiate the process of disarmaments up to minimum level. The successful conclusion of ‘START NEW’ between both powers strengthens the possibility of reaching an agreement on nuclear disarmament.

Thirdly; following the reductions by the US and Russia, the rest of the countries can be brought on board for complete abolition of nukes. It would not be a difficult task. Once the powerful countries lead the course, rest will follow them. Perhaps others seem poised to welcome such move. The willingness of China, the UK and France has already been mentioned. The two South Asian countries India and Pakistan are also ready to shun the nukes. Last June, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, backed the same goal, saying that: ‘The only effective form of nuclear disarmament and elimination of nuclear weapons is global disarmament. President Zardari has also talked of ‘nuclear weapon-free South Asia. North Korea is already on-board in six-party talks and has also committed to abolish nuclear weapons for economic incentives. The only country which has stayed silent is Israel which is undeclared nuclear state. But given the leverage, Washington enjoys over it, Israel will have to be part of the process.

Once this process sets in momentum, the weapons could be delivered to a single and common remote place in oceans for dismantling under the supervision of skilled scientists. The nuclear material could be returned to the donors for use in the energy sector or disposal.

Lastly, having achieved the complete and verified elimination of nuclear weapons from the world, all the countries will have to conclude a joint treaty at the UN platform banning any development of nuclear weapons and technology. As Queen Noor of Jordan told BBC, ‘We have to work on de-legitimising the status of nuclear weapons.’ This is vital for making the elimination of nukes irreversible. This would require establishing many mechanisms to constitute an eventual regime for overseeing the global ban.

It is also important to realise that advantage of use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is too great to be ignored. The NPT also underscores ‘to promote cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy’. And, every country has the right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. But given the element of conflict in international affairs and atmosphere of mistrust, all the countries can’t be trusted as reliable for not pursuing the ambitions of acquiring nuclear weapons again. This situation warrants a new approach, which would allow the use of nuclear energy and deny the weapons technology.

The Global Zero initiative envisages ‘international management of the fuel cycle to prevent future development of nuclear weapons. ‘An agreement on a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) led system that would help states wishing to develop a civil nuclear energy industry to do so without increasing the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation’ says David Miliband. Creation of such international fuel bank would also end the conflicts in the world like Iran Nuclear Issue. This proposal was also forwarded by IAEA’s former head Muhammad Elbradi as early as in 2003, that: ‘all production and processing of nuclear material be under international control. This novel idea has attracted the EU and an American billionaire ‘Warren Buffett’ for financing the project.

In this way, the world could not only be safe from destruction and the humanity from annihilation, but the tremendous energy potential of the nuclear resources could also be utilised for the welfare of people. The resources that go into weapons would help keep people safe and healthy and to give them opportunities. Not only the world is facing energy crisis due to depletion of fossil fuels, but with their emissions our environment is being damaged severely. Nuclear power possesses tremendous energy and simultaneously it is clean energy. It is important for health purposes as it is used in the treatment of many diseases, including cancer. Its use in agriculture enhances crop yield which would help mitigate the food crisis.

Global Zero offers two’ pronged benefits: achieving safety by eliminating nuclear weapons and to achieve prosperity by using nuclear energy. The leaders of world have the greatest moral responsibility to seize the opportunity for the welfare of the living and the future generations of mankind. As Benazir Bhutto said, ‘We owe it to our children to build a world free of the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Related Articles

Great-Power Rivalry Would Lead to a Bipolar World

April 17, 2021

Guess for CSS 2021

January 12, 2021

Essay Outlines

May 18, 2020

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

Drishti IAS Blog

• Global Climate Crisis and Net Zero

Global Climate Crisis and Net Zero  Blogs Home

• 17 Nov 2023

Natural climate changes have shaped Earth's history, from ice ages to warm periods. Yet, since the industrial revolution, human activities, notably fossil fuel use, have intensified the greenhouse gas effect, causing global warming . Key contributors include energy consumption, industrial processes, vehicular emissions, deforestation, and landfills. The consequences are evident: glacial melting, rising sea levels, warmer oceans impacting currents, heightened extreme events, and declining biodiversity. This unnatural warming disrupts Earth's systems.

Climate Change: A Race Against Time

Since 1880, the average global temperature has risen by 1.1°C, of which the majority of warming has happened after 1975 (NASA GISS). The current international agenda as reflected in the Paris Accord is to limit the warming to 1.5°C from pre-industrial levels to secure a livable future for all. A 2°C rise will set a chain of irreversible reactions in Earth's climate. Despite the scientific community and activists pushing for long to take climate action , a lack of political will, institutional changes and industry accountability have kept us way beyond the target. At current policy rates, we are projected to reach a 2.8°C rise by 2100.

Going Net Zero:

The concept, embedded in physical climate science, refers to a state of Earth's atmosphere where the anthropogenic GHGs released into the air are balanced by the removal of an equal amount. The Net zero target on an international level was the first time set by the Paris Climate Accord (entered into force on 4 November 2016).

The Need for Net Zero:

To keep the global temperature within the limit, only a specific amount of CO2 and other GHGs can be present in the earth's atmosphere. Any increase above that budget should be countered by removal into natural or artificial sinks. Net zero is crucial to keep the temperatures around 1.5°C and forms an important reference level to keep the individual national emissions in check. It becomes pivotal as 1.5°C targets are critical to keeping severe climate change-related disasters under control (IPCC).

Challenges in Transitioning to Net Zero:

• Absence of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) that plan the climate strategy of countries to reduce emissions including the financial details.
• Limited expertise availability
• Energy security in energy transition: energy security has increasingly become a prime focus, especially after the Russia and Ukraine war (Russia being an important global supplier of gas). Alternative energy with low GHG emissions comes mostly from sources that vary with weather, impacting the sustained supply of energy. Storage of such energy for longer durations is currently a challenge.
• Higher cost of infrastructure and technologies required for green energy.
• Integrity and credibility of non-government entities. Although net-zero targets are increasing, the robustness of these pledges sometimes does not match the international standards laid out in the Race to Zero campaign.

• Accurate emission calculations: Difficulty in estimating and reducing supply chain emissions.
• Pace of technology: remains slow to achieve such a dramatic shift in emissions.
• Fair and ethical: Emission reduction should be sustainable with regard to its impact on the poor and vulnerable.

Solutions to Achieve the Goal:

Transitioning to net zero means a complete overhaul in consumption and production patterns. Switching to clean energy and electrification of transport and industry would help in faster decarbonisation. But simply reducing fossil fuel emissions is not a panacea; CO2 has decades-long impacts, which calls for urgent removal of existing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Carbon Sequestration Mechanisms : Carbon capture and storage from the atmosphere naturally or artificially removes the CO2 present.

• Natural carbon sequestration: by plants and open soil.
• Geological carbon sequestration: in deep porous rocks or saline aquifers.
• Technological carbon sequestration: graphene production, direct air capture and engineered molecules or ionic liquids that absorb GHGs Or CO2 from the atmosphere directly.

Innovative Strategies and Technologies:

• for speedier carbon emission calculations. (Altruistiq is a company that employs AI).
• to assess climate-related risks, provide integrated information and help adapt to extremes (ClimateAI).
• Affordable Direct Air Capture : refers to the direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, a promising but currently very costly technology. If carbon captured is further sequestrated or brought to use it is referred to as Direct Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
• Carbon capture usage and storage : refers to capture from point sources like power plants etc, its transport and storage.
• Financing: proactive investment and financing into technologies that produce "high volume industrial commodities" (like steel, hydrogen, cement etc) without emitting carbon.
• Energy Storage Technologies : Long-Duration Energy Storage (LDES): technologies that can be quickly deployed and scaled to different levels for supplying continuous clean energy (eg: Energy Dome, e-Zinc).
• Digitisation: automated sensor-based lighting and heating systems; dimming lights for energy-smart buildings.
• Decarbonisation of buildings: passive energy use, low-carbon concrete mix, minimal use of high carbon footprint (CF) materials like metals, reusing construction materials and renovating old buildings.
• Low-carbon Foods : Cultivated meats derived from lab-based proteins (eg: Shiok Meats) have a lower footprint as compared to traditional meats. This emerging industry can also help preserve the biodiversity crucial for climate adaptation.

Strategies and Policies Aiming Net Zero:

More than 70 countries have pledged to a net zero target. Race to Zero is a UN effort for non-state actors to adopt rigorous climate action.

• National climate action plans: all countries need to adopt detailed sectoral outlined climate action plans to reduce emissions.
• Carbon pricing and regulations: refer to putting a price on carbon pollution to bring down the emissions. It includes Emission Trading System (ETS) and Carbon Taxing (CT). The former is a cap and trade system capping the amount of GHGs emitted, allowing low-emitting industries to trade it with high-emitting ones. CT is levied on fossil fuel products according to their carbon content proportion. As per the world bank , the report, outlining the most recent advancements in global carbon pricing, indicates that there are currently 68 active direct carbon pricing mechanisms in operation worldwide.
• removing fossil fuel subsidy
• taxing fuels
• payment or incentives for emission reduction ( Switzerland voters in June 2023 approved the Climate and Innovation Act which offers incentives to individuals and companies to reduce their emissions.)
• Investment redirection: into clean research and development projects. Inflation Reduction Act ,2022 USA subsidises clean energy and invests in home energy efficiency improvement, climate-smart agriculture, technology etc.
• India has set its NDC.
• Clean energy installation and subsidisation: PM Kusum Yojana for solar pumps in agriculture and installing solar setups in houses provides subsidy on electric bills. The purchase of solar equipment is also subsidised.
• Energy Conservation Act 2022 : focuses on a decrease in energy intensity, empowers Union and States to enforce energy efficiency and conservation, provides for penalties and adjudication and an appellate tribunal. It also specifies a minimum share of non-fossil fuel energy to be deployed by different sectors, energy conservation and sustainable building codes.
• Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS): under the above Act, CCTS has come into force in 2023, wherein Carbon credit certificates will be provided to the conforming entities.

Positive Impacts of Net Zero

• Environment: keeping global warming and climate change in check influences biodiversity and ecosystem health positively, limiting extreme disaster risk and preventing natural cycles from disruption.
• Economy : long-term economic sustainability as the climate change initiated extreme events may bring economic crashes. Transition to low carbon industries and promotion of a circular economy.
• Society: improvement in health with lower levels of pollution and decrease in deaths related to extreme weather events. Increased emitter responsibility protecting society from indirect and undue price paid.

Call For Action:

"Leadership is influence," stated JC Maxwell, emphasising the need for world leaders to embrace eco-friendly lifestyles. The Dutch Prime Minister's choice of cycling over car rides sets an example, with Dutch citizens avoiding 1.41 million tons of CO2 annually, equivalent to planting 54.4 million trees (UNEP). Global adoption of cycle-to-work schemes with financial incentives is crucial.

India's Mission LiFE promotes sustainable living. PM Narendra Modi's preferences for Khadi clothing, recycled PET fabric, plant-based diets, and climate-resilient crops showcase eco-conscious choices. The G20 conference and US state dinner featured vegan and millet-based food.

"Reduce, Reuse, Repair, and Recycle" initiatives lower carbon footprints. Advocating low consumption, buying second-hand, and repairing products help reduce CO2 emissions. Composting significantly reduces household emissions; supporting large composters and local recycling plants is essential.

Stringent laws combat food wastage. France's Food Waste Law, along with similar laws in Singapore, Italy, Japan, and China, compels grocery stores to donate edible items. India's Food Sharing Alliance encourages food donation but requires stricter laws to address waste and improve composting infrastructure.

Redirecting consumer expenditure toward eco-friendly options is vital for global climate action. Emphasising that climate responsibility is everyone's concern, individuals and nations should prioritise choices that have a positive impact on the planet.

Conclusion In the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, despite limited investments in climate-friendly sectors and a substantial focus on fossil fuels, the net zero goal has gained traction. Responsibility spans from individuals to institutions and industries to consumers, emphasising shared commitment to climate catastrophe prevention. Achieving net zero relies on innovation and stringent laws, with mass awareness and mobiliation being imperative. Individual efforts and choices shape consumer demand, driving fair, sustainable, low-emission supplies. India's investments in solar energy and vehicle electrification, coupled with low legacy emissions, position it favourably in containing warming to 2°C. Our commitment to climate action today shapes Earth's future.

References:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero-2/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01245-w

https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-media/jp-news-outreach/global-net-zero-emissions-goals-challenges-and-opportunities

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/06/these-new-technologies-will-accelerate-the-transition-to-net-zero

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/12/bumps-in-the-energy-transition-yergin

https://blogs.worldbank.org/allaboutfinance/barriers-net-zero-how-firms-can-make-or-break-green-transition

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-and-what-role-can-it-play-in-tackling-climate-change/

https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon

https://qz.com/india-must-cross-these-hurdles-to-turn-net-zero-by-2070-1849566518

https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2023-01-18/india-energy-conservation-amendment-act-2022-allowing-for-a-carbon-credit-trading-system-comes-into-force

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1923458

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-economic-transformation-what-would-change-in-the-net-zero-transition

https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2023-07-06/switzerland-voters-approve-law-codifying-net-zero-target-by-2050/

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/12/america-landmark-climate-law-bordoff

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/australia-passes-landmark-bill-for-net-zero-emissions-by-2050

https://www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/why-i-ride-my-bike-to-work-by-the-prime-minister-of-the-netherlands/

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/cycling-better-mode-transport

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/krishna-athal/5-global-examples-to-inspire-indian-govt-to-launch-cycle-to-work-schemes

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/06/what-is-carbon-taxation-basics

Sakshi Naithani

Sakshi has done her Masters in Geography from Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. She is currently pursuing Ph.D. in natural hazard risk assessment from Indian Institute of Remote Sensing-Kumaun University. When not engaged in research work, she loves to write poetry.

Comments (0)

The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it

Facebook Twitter Print Email

A host of countries have recently announced major commitments to significantly cut their carbon emissions, promising to reach "net zero" in the coming years. The term is becoming a global rallying cry, frequently cited as a necessary step to successfully beat back climate change, and the devastation it is causing.

What is net zero and why is it important?

Put simply, net zero means we are not adding new emissions to the atmosphere. Emissions will continue, but will be balanced by absorbing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere.

Practically every country has joined the Paris Agreement on climate change, which calls for keeping the global temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial era levels. If we continue to pump out the emissions that cause climate change, however, temperatures will continue to rise well beyond 1.5, to levels that threaten the lives and livelihoods of people everywhere.

This is why a growing number of countries are making commitments to achieve carbon neutrality, or "net zero" emissions within the next few decades. It’s a big task, requiring ambitious actions starting right now.

Net zero by 2050 is the goal. But countries also need to demonstrate how they will get there. Efforts to reach net-zero must be complemented with adaptation and resilience measures, and the mobilization of climate financing for developing countries.

So how can the world move toward net zero?

The good news is that the technology exists to reach net zero – and it is affordable.

A key element is powering economies with clean energy, replacing polluting coal - and gas and oil-fired power stations - with renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar farms. This would dramatically reduce carbon emissions. Plus, renewable energy is now not only cleaner, but often cheaper than fossil fuels.

A wholesale switch to electric transport, powered by renewable energy, would also play a huge role in lowering emissions, with the added bonus of slashing air pollution in the world’s major cities. Electric vehicles are rapidly becoming cheaper and more efficient, and many countries, including those committed to net zero, have proposed plans to phase out the sale of fossil-fuel powered cars.

Other harmful emissions come from agriculture (livestock produce significant levels of methane, a greenhouse gas). These could be reduced drastically if we eat less meat and more plant-based foods. Here again, the signs are promising, such as the rising popularity of "plant-based meats" now being sold in major international fast-food chains.

What will happen to remaining emissions?

Reducing emissions is extremely important. To get to net zero, we also need to find ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Here again, solutions are at hand. The most important have existed in nature for thousands of years.

 These "nature-based solutions" include forests, peatbogs, mangroves, soil and even underground seaweed forests , which are all highly efficient at absorbing carbon. This is why huge efforts are being made around the world to save forests, plant trees, and rehabilitate peat and mangrove areas, as well as to improve farming techniques.

Who is responsible for getting to net zero?

We are all responsible as individuals, in terms of changing our habits and living in a way which is more sustainable, and which does less harm to the planet, making the kind of lifestyle changes which are highlighted in the UN’s Act Now campaign.

The private sector also needs to get in on the act and it is doing so through the UN Global Compact , which helps businesses to align with the UN’s environmental and societal goals.

It’s clear, however, that the main driving force for change will be made at a national government level, such as through legislation and regulations to reduce emissions.

Many governments are now moving in the right direction. By early 2021, countries representing more than 65 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions and more than 70 per cent of the world economy, will have made ambitious commitments to carbon neutrality.　

The European Union, Japan and the Republic of Korea, together with more than 110 other countries, have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050; China says it will do so before 2060.

Some climate facts:

The earth is now 1.1°C warmer than it was at the start of the industrial revolution. We are not on track to meet agreed targets in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change , which stipulated keeping global temperature increase well below 2 °C or at 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.

2010-2019 is the warmest decade on record. On the current path of carbon dioxide emissions, the global temperature is expected to increase by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of century.

To avoid the worst of warming (maximum 1.5°C rise), the world will need to decrease fossil fuel production by roughly 6 per cent per year between 2020 and 2030. Countries are instead planning and projecting an average annual increase of 2 per cent.

Climate action is not a budget buster or economy-wrecker: In fact, shifting to a green economy will add jobs. It could yield a direct economic gain of US$26 trillion through to 2030 compared with business-as-usual. And this is likely to be a conservative estimate.

Are these commitments any more than just political statements?

These commitments are important signals of good intentions to reach the goal, but must be backed by rapid and ambitious action. One important step is to provide detailed plans for action in nationally determined contributions or NDCs. These define targets and actions to reduce emissions within the next 5 to 10 years. They are critical to guide the right investments and attract enough finance.

So far, 186 parties to the Paris Agreement have developed NDCs. This year, they are expected to submit new or updated plans demonstrating higher ambition and action. Click here to see the NDC registry .

Is net zero realistic?

Yes! Especially if every country, city, financial institution and company adopts realistic plans for transitioning to net zero emissions by 2050.

The COVID-19 pandemic recovery could be an important and positive turning point. When economic stimulus packages kick in, there will be a genuine opportunity to promote renewable energy investments, smart buildings, green and public transport, and a whole range of other interventions that will help to slow climate change.

But not all countries are in the same position to affect change, are they?

That’s absolutely true. Major emitters, such as the G20 countries, which generate 80 per cent of carbon emissions, in particular, need to significantly increase their present levels of ambition and action.

Also, keep in mind that far greater efforts are needed to build resilience in vulnerable countries and for the most vulnerable people; they do the least to cause

climate change but bear the worst impacts. Resilience and adaptation action do not get the funding they need, however.

Even as they pursue net zero, developed countries must deliver on their commitment to provide $100 billion dollars a year for mitigation, adaptation and resilience in developing countries.

What is the UN doing promote climate action? 

It supports a broader process of global consensus on climate goals through the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development .

It is a leading source of scientific findings and research on climate change.

Within developing countries, it assists governments with the practicalities of establishing and monitoring NDCs, and taking measures to adapt to climate change, such as by reducing disaster risks and establishing climate-smart agriculture.

• climate change

• Get involved

THE SDGS IN ACTION.

What are the sustainable development goals.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity.

The 17 SDGs are integrated—they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability.

Countries have committed to prioritize progress for those who're furthest behind. The SDGs are designed to end poverty, hunger, AIDS, and discrimination against women and girls.

The creativity, knowhow, technology and financial resources from all of society is necessary to achieve the SDGs in every context.

Eradicating poverty in all its forms remains one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. While the number of people living in extreme poverty dropped by more than half between 1990 and 2015, too many are still struggling for the most basic human needs.

As of 2015, about 736 million people still lived on less than US$1.90 a day; many lack food, clean drinking water and sanitation. Rapid growth in countries such as China and India has lifted millions out of poverty, but progress has been uneven. Women are more likely to be poor than men because they have less paid work, education, and own less property.

Progress has also been limited in other regions, such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, which account for 80 percent of those living in extreme poverty. New threats brought on by climate change, conflict and food insecurity, mean even more work is needed to bring people out of poverty.

The SDGs are a bold commitment to finish what we started, and end poverty in all forms and dimensions by 2030. This involves targeting the most vulnerable, increasing basic resources and services, and supporting communities affected by conflict and climate-related disasters.

736 million people still live in extreme poverty.

10 percent of the world’s population live in extreme poverty, down from 36 percent in 1990.

Some 1.3 billion people live in multidimensional poverty.

Half of all people living in poverty are under 18.

One person in every 10 is extremely poor.

Goal targets

• By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions
• Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable
• By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance
• By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters
• Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions
• Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions

SDGs in Action

Cementing a better life

Addressing the root causes of ...

Migrants and refugees making h...

Publications.

Multi-speed growth is back, wi...

Inspiring young people through...

Listening to young Pacific Isl...

Zero hunger.

Zero Hunger

The number of undernourished people has dropped by almost half in the past two decades because of rapid economic growth and increased agricultural productivity. Many developing countries that used to suffer from famine and hunger can now meet their nutritional needs. Central and East Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean have all made huge progress in eradicating extreme hunger.

Unfortunately, extreme hunger and malnutrition remain a huge barrier to development in many countries. There are 821 million people estimated to be chronically undernourished as of 2017, often as a direct consequence of environmental degradation, drought and biodiversity loss. Over 90 million children under five are dangerously underweight. Undernourishment and severe food insecurity appear to be increasing in almost all regions of Africa, as well as in South America.

The SDGs aim to end all forms of hunger and malnutrition by 2030, making sure all people–especially children–have sufficient and nutritious food all year. This involves promoting sustainable agricultural, supporting small-scale farmers and equal access to land, technology and markets. It also requires international cooperation to ensure investment in infrastructure and technology to improve agricultural productivity.

The number of undernourished people reached 821 million in 2017.

In 2017 Asia accounted for nearly two thirds, 63 percent, of the world’s hungry.

Nearly 151 million children under five, 22 percent, were still stunted in 2017.

More than 1 in 8 adults is obese.

1 in 3 women of reproductive age is anemic.

26 percent of workers are employed in agriculture.

• By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons
• By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
• By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality
• By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed
• Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries
• Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round
• Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility.

South Sudan, the world’s young...

Water unites communities

Can Myanmar bounce back?

Microfinancing powers small bu...

UNDP’s Engagement at Financing...

Mapping Essential Life Support...

Good health and well-being.

We have made great progress against several leading causes of death and disease. Life expectancy has increased dramatically; infant and maternal mortality rates have declined, we’ve turned the tide on HIV and malaria deaths have halved.

Good health is essential to sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda reflects the complexity and interconnectedness of the two. It takes into account widening economic and social inequalities, rapid urbanization, threats to the climate and the environment, the continuing burden of HIV and other infectious diseases, and emerging challenges such as noncommunicable diseases. Universal health coverage will be integral to achieving SDG 3, ending poverty and reducing inequalities. Emerging global health priorities not explicitly included in the SDGs, including antimicrobial resistance, also demand action.

But the world is off-track to achieve the health-related SDGs. Progress has been uneven, both between and within countries. There’s a 31-year gap between the countries with the shortest and longest life expectancies. And while some countries have made impressive gains, national averages hide that many are being left behind. Multisectoral, rights-based and gender-sensitive approaches are essential to address inequalities and to build good health for all.

At least 400 million people have no basic healthcare, and 40 percent lack social protection.

More than 1.6 billion people live in fragile settings where protracted crises, combined with weak national capacity to deliver basic health services, present a significant challenge to global health.

By the end of 2017, 21.7 million people living with HIV were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Yet more than 15 million people are still waiting for treatment.

Every 2 seconds someone aged 30 to 70 years dies prematurely from noncommunicable diseases - cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes or cancer.

7 million people die every year from exposure to fine particles in polluted air.

More than one of every three women have experienced either physical or sexual violence at some point in their life resulting in both short- and long-term consequences for their physical, mental, and sexual and reproductive health.

• By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births
• By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births
• By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases
• By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being
• Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol
• By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents
• By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes
• Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all
• By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination
• Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate
• Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and noncommunicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all
• Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States
• Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks

Achieving the 10-10-10 HIV tar...

The many facets of climate and...

Afghans need sustainable alter...

UNDP at the 25th International...

Quality education.

Since 2000, there has been enormous progress in achieving the target of universal primary education. The total enrollment rate in developing regions reached 91 percent in 2015, and the worldwide number of children out of school has dropped by almost half. There has also been a dramatic increase in literacy rates, and many more girls are in school than ever before. These are all remarkable successes.

Progress has also been tough in some developing regions due to high levels of poverty, armed conflicts and other emergencies. In Western Asia and North Africa, ongoing armed conflict has seen an increase in the number of children out of school. This is a worrying trend. While Sub-Saharan Africa made the greatest progress in primary school enrollment among all developing regions – from 52 percent in 1990, up to 78 percent in 2012 – large disparities still remain. Children from the poorest households are up to four times more likely to be out of school than those of the richest households. Disparities between rural and urban areas also remain high.

Achieving inclusive and quality education for all reaffirms the belief that education is one of the most powerful and proven vehicles for sustainable development. This goal ensures that all girls and boys complete free primary and secondary schooling by 2030. It also aims to provide equal access to affordable vocational training, to eliminate gender and wealth disparities, and achieve universal access to a quality higher education.

Enrollment in primary education in developing countries has reached 91 percent.

Still, 57 million primary-aged children remain out of school, more than half of them in sub-Saharan Africa.

In developing countries, one in four girls is not in school.

About half of all out-of-school children of primary school age live in conflict-affected areas.

103 million youth worldwide lack basic literacy skills, and more than 60 percent of them are women.

6 out of 10 children and adolescents are not achieving a minimum level of proficiency in reading and math.

• By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and Goal-4 effective learning outcomes
• By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and preprimary education so that they are ready for primary education
• By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university
• By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship
• By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations
• By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy
• By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development
• Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, nonviolent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all
• By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries
• By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing states

Building a more resilient educ...

Empowering Afghan women and gi...

How Do Investments in Human Ca...

Gender equality.

Gender Equality

Ending all discrimination against women and girls is not only a basic human right, it’s crucial for sustainable future; it’s proven that empowering women and girls helps economic growth and development.

UNDP has made gender equality central to its work and we’ve seen remarkable progress in the past 20 years. There are more girls in school now compared to 15 years ago, and most regions have reached gender parity in primary education.

But although there are more women than ever in the labour market, there are still large inequalities in some regions, with women systematically denied the same work rights as men. Sexual violence and exploitation, the unequal division of unpaid care and domestic work, and discrimination in public office all remain huge barriers. Climate change and disasters continue to have a disproportionate effect on women and children, as do conflict and migration.

It is vital to give women equal rights land and property, sexual and reproductive health, and to technology and the internet. Today there are more women in public office than ever before, but encouraging more women leaders will help achieve greater gender equality.

Women earn only 77 cents for every dollar that men get for the same work.

35 percent of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence.

Women represent just 13 percent of agricultural landholders.

Almost 750 million women and girls alive today were married before their 18th birthday.

Two thirds of developing countries have achieved gender parity in primary education.

Only 24 percent of national parliamentarians were women as of November 2018, a small increase from 11.3 percent in 1995.

• End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere
• Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation
• Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation
• Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate
• Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decisionmaking in political, economic and public life
• Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences
• Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws
• Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women
• Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels

UNDP Gender Equality Strategy ...

The challenges of the Papua Ne...

Press releases.

UNDP applauds Namibian High Co...

Clean water and sanitation.

Water scarcity affects more than 40 percent of people, an alarming figure that is projected to rise as temperatures do. Although 2.1 billion people have improved water sanitation since 1990, dwindling drinking water supplies are affecting every continent.

More and more countries are experiencing water stress, and increasing drought and desertification is already worsening these trends. By 2050, it is projected that at least one in four people will suffer recurring water shortages.

Safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030 requires we invest in adequate infrastructure, provide sanitation facilities, and encourage hygiene. Protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems is essential.

Ensuring universal safe and affordable drinking water involves reaching over 800 million people who lack basic services and improving accessibility and safety of services for over two billion.

In 2015, 4.5 billion people lacked safely managed sanitation services (with adequately disposed or treated excreta) and 2.3 billion lacked even basic sanitation.

71 percent of the global population, 5.2 billion people, had safely-managed drinking water in 2015, but 844 million people still lacked even basic drinking water.

39 percent of the global population, 2.9 billion people, had safe sanitation in 2015, but 2.3 billion people still lacked basic sanitation. 892 million people practiced open defecation.

80 percent of wastewater goes into waterways without adequate treatment.

Water stress affects more than 2 billion people, with this figure projected to increase.

80 percent of countries have laid the foundations for integrated water resources management.

The world has lost 70 percent of its natural wetlands over the last century.

• By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all
• By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations
• By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally
• By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity
• By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate
• By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes
• By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies
• Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management

Restoring sacred land

Navigating the future of atoll...

(R)evolution

Affordable and clean energy.

Between 2000 and 2018, the number of people with electricity increased from 78 to 90 percent, and the numbers without electricity dipped to 789 million.

Yet as the population continues to grow, so will the demand for cheap energy, and an economy reliant on fossil fuels is creating drastic changes to our climate.

Investing in solar, wind and thermal power, improving energy productivity, and ensuring energy for all is vital if we are to achieve SDG 7 by 2030.

Expanding infrastructure and upgrading technology to provide clean and more efficient energy in all countries will encourage growth and help the environment.  

One out of 10 people still lacks electricity, and most live in rural areas of the developing world. More than half are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Energy is by far the main contributor to climate change. It accounts for 73 percent of human-caused greenhouse gases.

Energy efficiency is key; the right efficiency policies could enable the world to achieve more than 40 percent of the emissions cuts needed to reach its climate goals without new technology.

Almost a third of the world’s population—2.8 billion—rely on polluting and unhealthy fuels for cooking.

As of 2017, 17.5 percent of power was generated through renewable sources.

The renewable energy sector employed a record 11.5 million people in 2019. The changes needed in energy production and uses to achieve the Paris Agreement target of limiting the rise in temperature to below 2C can create 18 million jobs.

• By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services
• By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
• By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency
• By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology
• By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States, and land-locked developing coun

How a “portfolio approach” spa...

Innovative Governance for Priv...

The big switch

Accelerating the Green Transit...

Decent work and economic growth.

Over the past 25 years the number of workers living in extreme poverty has declined dramatically, despite the lasting impact of the 2008 economic crisis and global recession. In developing countries, the middle class now makes up more than 34 percent of total employment – a number that has almost tripled between 1991 and 2015.

However, as the global economy continues to recover we are seeing slower growth, widening inequalities, and not enough jobs to keep up with a growing labour force. According to the International Labour Organization, more than 204 million people were unemployed in 2015.

The SDGs promote sustained economic growth, higher levels of productivity and technological innovation. Encouraging entrepreneurship and job creation are key to this, as are effective measures to eradicate forced labour, slavery and human trafficking. With these targets in mind, the goal is to achieve full and productive employment, and decent work, for all women and men by 2030.

An estimated 172 million people worldwide were without work in 2018 - an unemployment rate of 5 percent.

As a result of an expanding labour force, the number of unemployed is projected to increase by 1 million every year and reach 174 million by 2020.

Some 700 million workers lived in extreme or moderate poverty in 2018, with less than US$3.20 per day.

Women’s participation in the labour force stood at 48 per cent in 2018, compared with 75 percent for men. Around 3 in 5 of the 3.5 billion people in the labour force in 2018 were men.

Overall, 2 billion workers were in informal employment in 2016, accounting for 61 per cent of the world’s workforce.

Many more women than men are underutilized in the labour force—85 million compared to 55 million.

• Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries
• Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors
• Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services
• Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead
• By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value
• By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training
• Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms
• Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment
• By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
• Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all
• Increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, including through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries
• By 2020, develop and operationalize a global strategy for youth employment and implement the Global Jobs Pact of the International Labour Organization

Voices of hope

Indigenous Peoples - an antido...

Industry, innovation and infrastructure.

Investment in infrastructure and innovation are crucial drivers of economic growth and development. With over half the world population now living in cities, mass transport and renewable energy are becoming ever more important, as are the growth of new industries and information and communication technologies.

Technological progress is also key to finding lasting solutions to both economic and environmental challenges, such as providing new jobs and promoting energy efficiency. Promoting sustainable industries, and investing in scientific research and innovation, are all important ways to facilitate sustainable development.

More than 4 billion people still do not have access to the Internet, and 90 percent are from the developing world. Bridging this digital divide is crucial to ensure equal access to information and knowledge, as well as foster innovation and entrepreneurship.   

Worldwide, 2.3 billion people lack access to basic sanitation.

In some low-income African countries, infrastructure constraints cut businesses’ productivity by around 40 percent.

2.6 billion people in developing countries do not have access to constant electricity.

More than 4 billion people still do not have access to the Internet; 90 percent of them are in the developing world.

The renewable energy sectors currently employ more than 2.3 million people; the number could reach 20 million by 2030.

In developing countries, barely 30 percent of agricultural products undergo industrial processing, compared to 98 percent high-income countries.

• Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all
• Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry’s share of employment and gross domestic product, in line with national circumstances, and double its share in least developed countries
• Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in particular in developing countries, to financial services, including affordable credit, and their integration into value chains and markets
• By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities
• Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending
• Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States 18
• Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities
• Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020

Digital generation

Generic web page.

AI Hub for Sustainable Develop...

Ensuring positive, people-focu...

Reduced inequalities.

Income inequality is on the rise—the richest 10 percent have up to 40 percent of global income whereas the poorest 10 percent earn only between 2 to 7 percent. If we take into account population growth inequality in developing countries, inequality has increased by 11 percent.

Income inequality has increased in nearly everywhere in recent decades, but at different speeds. It’s lowest in Europe and highest in the Middle East.

These widening disparities require sound policies to empower lower income earners, and promote economic inclusion of all regardless of sex, race or ethnicity.

Income inequality requires global solutions. This involves improving the regulation and monitoring of financial markets and institutions, encouraging development assistance and foreign direct investment to regions where the need is greatest. Facilitating the safe migration and mobility of people is also key to bridging the widening divide.

In 2016, 22 percent of global income was received by the top 1 percent compared with 10 percent of income for the bottom 50 percent.

In 1980, the top one percent had 16 percent of global income. The bottom 50 percent had 8 percent of income.

Economic inequality is largely driven by the unequal ownership of capital. Since 1980, very large transfers of public to private wealth occurred in nearly all countries. The global wealth share of the top 1 percent was 33 percent in 2016.

Under "business as usual", the top 1 percent global wealth will reach 39 percent by 2050.

Women spend, on average, twice as much time on unpaid housework as men.

Women have as much access to financial services as men in just 60 percent of the countries assessed and to land ownership in just 42 percent of the countries assessed.

• By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average
• By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status
• Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard
• Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality
• Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulations
• Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions
• Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies
• Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreements
• Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmes
• By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per cent

It’s “our collective responsib...

Mauritania pilots digital ID a...

Sustainable cities and communities.

More than half of us  live in cities. By 2050, two-thirds of all humanity—6.5 billion people—will be urban. Sustainable development cannot be achieved without significantly transforming the way we build and manage our urban spaces.

The rapid growth of cities—a result of rising populations and increasing migration—has led to a boom in mega-cities, especially in the developing world, and slums are becoming a more significant feature of urban life.

Making cities sustainable means creating career and business opportunities, safe and affordable housing, and building resilient societies and economies. It involves investment in public transport, creating green public spaces, and improving urban planning and management in participatory and inclusive ways.

In 2018, 4.2 billion people, 55 percent of the world’s population, lived in cities. By 2050, the urban population is expected to reach 6.5 billion.

Cities occupy just 3 percent of the Earth’s land but account for 60 to 80 percent of energy consumption and at least 70 percent of carbon emissions.

828 million people are estimated to live in slums, and the number is rising.

In 1990, there were 10 cities with 10 million people or more; by 2014, the number of mega-cities rose to 28, and was expected to reach 33 by 2018. In the future, 9 out of 10 mega-cities will be in the developing world.

In the coming decades, 90 percent of urban expansion will be in the developing world.

The economic role of cities is significant. They generate about 80 percent of the global GDP.

• By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums
• By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons
• By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries
• Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage
• By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations
• By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management
• By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities
• Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning
• By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels
• Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials

Built to last

Urban Content of NDCs: Local C...

Responsible consumption and production.

Achieving economic growth and sustainable development requires that we urgently reduce our ecological footprint by changing the way we produce and consume goods and resources. Agriculture is the biggest user of water worldwide, and irrigation now claims close to 70 percent of all freshwater for human use.

The efficient management of our shared natural resources, and the way we dispose of toxic waste and pollutants, are important targets to achieve this goal. Encouraging industries, businesses and consumers to recycle and reduce waste is equally important, as is supporting developing countries to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption by 2030.

A large share of the world population is still consuming far too little to meet even their basic needs.  Halving the per capita of global food waste at the retailer and consumer levels is also important for creating more efficient production and supply chains. This can help with food security, and shift us towards a more resource efficient economy.

1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted every year, while almost 2 billion people go hungry or undernourished.

The food sector accounts for around 22 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, largely from the conversion of forests into farmland.

Globally, 2 billion people are overweight or obese.

Only 3 percent of the world’s water is fresh (drinkable), and humans are using it faster than nature can replenish it.

If people everywhere switched to energy efficient lightbulbs, the world would save US$120 billion annually.

One-fifth of the world’s final energy consumption in 2013 was from renewable sources.

• Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries
• By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
• By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses
• By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment
• By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse
• Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle
• Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities
• By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature
• Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production
• Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
• Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities

Equator Prize 2024 honors 11 I...

UNDP partners with Sitra to ac...

Popping the bottle

Popping the bottle, climate action.

There is no country that is not experiencing the drastic effects of climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions are more than 50 percent higher than in 1990. Global warming is causing long-lasting changes to our climate system, which threatens irreversible consequences if we do not act.

The annual average economic losses from climate-related disasters are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This is not to mention the human impact of geo-physical disasters, which are 91 percent climate-related, and which between 1998 and 2017 killed 1.3 million people, and left 4.4 billion injured. The goal aims to mobilize US$100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries to both adapt to climate change and invest in low-carbon development.

Supporting vulnerable regions will directly contribute not only to Goal 13 but also to the other SDGs. These actions must also go hand in hand with efforts to integrate disaster risk measures, sustainable natural resource management, and human security into national development strategies. It is still possible, with strong political will, increased investment, and using existing technology, to limit the increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, aiming at 1.5 ° C, but this requires urgent and ambitious collective action.

As of 2017 humans are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels.

Sea levels have risen by about 20 cm (8 inches) since 1880 and are projected to rise another 30–122 cm (1 to 4 feet) by 2100.

To limit warming to 1.5C, global net CO2 emissions must drop by 45% between 2010 and 2030, and reach net zero around 2050.

Climate pledges under The Paris Agreement cover only one third of the emissions reductions needed to keep the world below 2°C.

Bold climate action could trigger at least US$26 trillion in economic benefits by 2030.

The energy sector alone will create around 18 million more jobs by 2030, focused specifically on sustainable energy.

• Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
• Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
• Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
• Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible
• Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities

Second Regular Session of the ...

Designing digital systems for ...

A generation of hope: Youth-le...

Life below water.

The world’s oceans – their temperature, chemistry, currents and life – drive global systems that make the Earth habitable for humankind. How we manage this vital resource is essential for humanity as a whole, and to counterbalance the effects of climate change.

Over three billion people depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods. However, today we are seeing 30 percent of the world’s fish stocks overexploited, reaching below the level at which they can produce sustainable yields.

Oceans also absorb about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide produced by humans, and we are seeing a 26 percent rise in ocean acidification since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Marine pollution, an overwhelming majority of which comes from land-based sources, is reaching alarming levels, with an average of 13,000 pieces of plastic litter to be found on every square kilometre of ocean.

The SDGs aim to sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems from pollution, as well as address the impacts of ocean acidification. Enhancing conservation and the sustainable use of ocean-based resources through international law will also help mitigate some of the challenges facing our oceans.

The ocean covers three quarters of the Earth’s surface and represents 99 percent of the living space on the planet by volume.

The ocean contains nearly 200,000 identified species, but actual numbers may lie in the millions.

As much as 40 percent of the ocean is heavily affected by pollution, depleted fisheries, loss of coastal habitats and other human activities.

The ocean absorbs about 30 percent of carbon dioxide produced by humans, buffering the impacts of global warming.

More than 3 billion people depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods.

The market value of marine and coastal resources and industries is estimated at US$3 trillion per year, about 5 percent of global GDP.

• By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution
• By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans
• Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels
• By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics
• By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information
• By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation
• By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism
• Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries
• Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets
• Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of The Future We Want

Why UNDP is tackling the devel...

“It's like the ocean itself is...

New $135 million UNDP and GEF ...

Turning development challenges...

Life on land.

Human life depends on the earth as much as the ocean for our sustenance and livelihoods. Plant life provides 80 percent of the human diet, and we rely on agriculture as an important economic resources. Forests cover 30 percent of the Earth’s surface, provide vital habitats for millions of species, and important sources for clean air and water, as well as being crucial for combating climate change.

Every year, 13 million hectares of forests are lost, while the persistent degradation of drylands has led to the desertification of 3.6 billion hectares, disproportionately affecting poor communities.

While 15 percent of land is protected, biodiversity is still at risk. Nearly 7,000 species of animals and plants have been illegally traded. Wildlife trafficking not only erodes biodiversity, but creates insecurity, fuels conflict, and feeds corruption.

Urgent action must be taken to reduce the loss of natural habitats and biodiversity which are part of our common heritage and support global food and water security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and peace and security.

Around 1.6 billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods.

Forests are home to more than 80 percent of all terrestrial species of animals, plants and insects.

2.6 billion people depend directly on agriculture for a living.

Nature-based climate solutions can contribute about a third of CO2 reductions by 2030.

The value of ecosystems to human livelihoods and well-being is $US125 trillion per year.v

Mountain regions provide 60-80 percent of the Earth's fresh water.

• By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
• By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally
• By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world
• By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development
• Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species
• Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed
• Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products
• By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species
• By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts
• Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems
• Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation
• Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities

Peace, justice and strong institutions

We cannot hope for sustainable development without peace, stability, human rights and effective governance, based on the rule of law. Yet our world is increasingly divided. Some regions enjoy peace, security and prosperity, while others fall into seemingly endless cycles of conflict and violence. This is not inevitable and must be addressed.

Armed violence and insecurity have a destructive impact on a country’s development, affecting economic growth, and often resulting in grievances that last for generations. Sexual violence, crime, exploitation and torture are also prevalent where there is conflict, or no rule of law, and countries must take measures to protect those who are most at risk

The SDGs aim to significantly reduce all forms of violence, and work with governments and communities to end conflict and insecurity. Promoting the rule of law and human rights are key to this process, as is reducing the flow of illicit arms and strengthening the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance.

By the end of 2017, 68.5 million people had been forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence or human rights violations.

There are at least 10 million stateless people who have been denied nationality and its related rights.

Corruption, bribery, theft and tax evasion cost developing countries US$1.26 trillion per year.

49 countries lack laws protecting women from domestic violence.

In 46 countries, women now hold more than 30 percent of seats in at least one chamber of national parliament.

1 billion people are legally ‘invisible’ because they cannot prove who they are. This includes an estimated 625 million children under 14 whose births were never registered.

• Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
• End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children
• Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all
• By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime
• Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms
• Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
• Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels
• Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance
• By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration
• Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements
• Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime
• Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development

Finance, Integrity and Governa...

Partnerships for the goals.

The SDGs can only be realized with strong global partnerships and cooperation. Official Development Assistance remained steady but below target, at US$147 billion in 2017. While humanitarian crises brought on by conflict or natural disasters continue to demand more financial resources and aid. Many countries also require Official Development Assistance to encourage growth and trade.

The world is more interconnected than ever. Improving access to technology and knowledge is an important way to share ideas and foster innovation. Coordinating policies to help developing countries manage their debt, as well as promoting investment for the least developed, is vital for sustainable growth and development.

The goals aim to enhance North-South and South-South cooperation by supporting national plans to achieve all the targets. Promoting international trade, and helping developing countries increase their exports is all part of achieving a universal rules-based and equitable trading system that is fair and open and benefits all.

The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) says achieving SDGs will require US$5 trillion to $7 trillion in annual investment.

Total official development assistance reached US$147.2 billion in 2017.

In 2017, international remittances totaled US$613 billion; 76 percent of it went to developing countries.

In 2016, 6 countries met the international target to keep official development assistance at or above 0.7 percent of gross national income.

Sustainable and responsible investments represent high-potential sources of capital for SDGs. As of 2016, US$18.2 trillion was invested in this asset class.

The bond market for sustainable business is growing. In 2018 global green bonds reached US$155.5billion, up 78 percent from previous year.

• Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection
• Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries
• Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources
• Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress
• Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries  
• Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism
• Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed
• Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology  

Capacity building

• Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation  
• Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda
• Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020
• Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access  

Systemic issues

Policy and institutional coherence

• Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence
• Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development
• Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development  

Multi-stakeholder partnerships

• Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries
• Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships  

Data, monitoring and accountability

• By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts
• By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries

What is multilateralism in 202...

Sustainable Development Goals Integration

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Sustainable development goal: zero hunger.

More than 800 million people around the world are hungry. The United Nations’s second Sustainable Development Goal, Zero Hunger, aims to end world hunger by 2030.

Conservation, Social Studies, Civics, Economics

Migrants in Italy

People displaced from their homes because of war and conflict—as some of the migrants shown here in Rome, Italy, likely are—often are vulnerable to hunger.

Photograph by Stefano Montesi/Corbis

In 2012, at the United Nations (UN) Conferences on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, world representatives created the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The purpose of creating SDGs was “to produce a set of universal goals that meet the urgent environmental, political and economic challenges facing our world,” according to the UN Development Programme. There are 17 SDGs that the UN hopes to meet by 2030, the second of which is Zero Hunger . Hunger is not caused by food shortage alone, but by a combination of natural, social, and political forces. Currently, natural resources that are necessary for human survival—like freshwater, the ocean, forests, soils, and more—are dwindling. Climate change is contributing to the degradation of precious resources, as severe weather events, like droughts, become more common and affect harvests, leading to less food for human consumption. Poverty and inequality are also two drivers of hunger, affecting who can buy food, as well as what kind of food, and how much, is available. Hunger is also a product of war and conflict. During periods of unrest, a country's economy and infrastructure can become severely damaged. This negatively affects civilian access to food by either driving up food prices, interfering with food production, or forcing people from their homes. Some governments and military groups have even used starvation as a war tactic, cutting off civilians from their food supply. In 2018, the UN declared this tactic a war crime . With these problems in mind, the world needs sustainable solutions to adequately feed each person on the planet. Right now, there are around 815 million people who are hungry. This number is only expected to increase as the years go on; the UN estimates that two billion more people will be undernourished by 2050. The Zero Hunger SDG focuses on finding sustainable solutions to stop world hunger. The goals of the Zero Hunger initiative are to end hunger and make sure that enough nutritious foods are available to people by 2030. Other aspects of the goal include ending all forms of malnutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture . One environmental scientist that is working to alleviate world hunger is Jennifer Anne Burney. She is a National Geographic Explorer and associate professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California at San Diego. Concentrating on ensuring food security for the world as well as limiting climate change, Burney designs and uses technologies to improve food and nutrition security.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) 2024

Published by the Food Security Information Network (FSIN) in support of the Global Network against Food Crises (GNAFC), the GRFC 2024 is the reference document for global, regional and country-level acute food insecurity in 2023. The report is the result of a collaborative effort among 16 partners to achieve a consensus-based assessment of acute food insecurity and malnutrition in countries with food crises and aims to inform humanitarian and development action.  

FSIN and Global Network Against Food Crises. 2024. GRFC 2024 . Rome.

When citing this report online please use this link:

https://www.fsinplatform.org/report/global-report-food-crises-2024/

Advanced search

The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring

In a new report, we look at the economic transformation that a transition to net-zero emissions would entail—a transformation that would affect all countries and all sectors of the economy, either directly or indirectly. We estimate the changes in demand, capital spending, costs, and jobs, to 2050, for sectors that produce about 85 percent of overall emissions and assess economic shifts for 69 countries.

Each of the six articles highlighted on this page provides a detailed look at aspects of the net-zero transition. The full report, The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring , as well as a PDF summary, can be downloaded for free here.

Six characteristics define the net-zero transition

The transformation of the global economy needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 would be universal and significant, requiring $9.2 trillion in annual average spending on physical assets, $3.5 trillion more than today. To put it in comparable terms, that increase is equivalent to half of global corporate profits and one-quarter of total tax revenue in 2020. Accounting for expected increases in spending, as incomes and populations grow, as well as for currently legislated transition policies, the required increase in spending would be lower, but still about $1 trillion. Spending would be front-loaded—the next decade will be decisive—and the impact uneven across countries and sectors. The transition is also exposed to risks, including that of energy supply volatility. At the same time, it is rich in opportunity. The transition would prevent the buildup of physical climate risks and reduce the odds of initiating the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. It would also bring growth opportunities, as decarbonization creates efficiencies and opens markets for low-emissions products and services. Our research is not a projection or prediction and does not claim to be exhaustive. It is the simulation of one hypothetical and relatively orderly pathway toward 1.5°C using the Net Zero 2050 scenario from the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS).

Watch the replay

The net-zero challenge: accelerating decarbonization worldwide.

The seven energy and land-use systems that account for global emissions—power, industry, mobility, buildings, agriculture, forestry and other land use, and waste—will all need to be transformed to achieve net-zero emissions. Effective actions to accelerate decarbonization include shifting the energy mix away from fossil fuels and toward zero-emissions electricity and other low-emissions energy sources such as hydrogen; adapting industrial and agricultural processes; increasing energy efficiency and managing demand for energy; utilizing the circular economy ; consuming fewer emissions-intensive goods; deploying carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology; and enhancing sinks of both long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases.

The economic transformation: What would change in the net-zero transition

On the basis of this scenario, we estimate that global spending on physical assets in the transition would amount to about $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050, or about 7.5 percent of GDP annually on average. The biggest increase as a share of GDP would be between 2026 and 2030. Demand would be substantially affected. For example, manufacturing of internal combustion engine cars would eventually cease as sales of alternatives (for example, battery-electric and fuel cell-electric vehicles) increase from 5 percent of new-car sales in 2020 to virtually 100 percent by 2050. Power demand in 2050 would be more than double what it is today, while production of hydrogen and biofuels would increase more than tenfold. The transition could lead to a reallocation of labor, with about 200 million direct and indirect jobs gained and 185 million lost by 2050—shifts that are notable less for their size than for their concentrated, uneven, and re-allocative nature.

Sectors are unevenly exposed in the net-zero transition

All sectors of the economy are exposed to a net-zero transition, but some are more exposed than others. The sectors with the highest degree of exposure are those which directly emit significant quantities of greenhouse gases (for example, the coal and gas power sector) and those which sell products that emit greenhouse gases (such as the fossil fuel sector and the automotive sector). Approximately 20 percent of global GDP is in these sectors. A further 10 percent of GDP is in sectors with high-emissions supply chains, such as construction. Each of the most exposed parts of the economy will be differentially affected. The total cost of ownership of EVs could be lower than ICE cars by about 2025 in most regions, even as costs for steel and cement production could rise. Job gains would be largely associated with the transition to low-emissions forms of production, such as renewable power generation. Job losses would particularly affect workers in fossil fuel–intensive or otherwise emissions-intensive sectors.

How the net-zero transition would play out in countries and regions

To decarbonize, lower-income countries and fossil fuel resource producers would spend more on physical assets as a share of their GDP than other countries—in the case of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, India and other Asian nations, about 1.5 times or more as much as advanced economies to support economic development and build low-carbon infrastructure. Developing countries also have relatively greater shares of their jobs, GDP, and capital stock in sectors that would be most exposed; examples include India, Bangladesh, Kenya, and Nigeria. And countries like India would also face heightened physical risk from climate change. The effects within developed economies could be uneven, too; for instance, more than 10 percent of jobs in 44 US counties are in fossil fuel extraction and refining, fossil fuel–based power, and automotive manufacturing. At the same time, all countries will have growth prospects, from endowments of natural capital such as sunshine and forests, and through their technological and human resources.

Managing the net-zero transition: Actions for stakeholders

The findings of this research serve as a clear call for more thoughtful and decisive action, taken with the utmost urgency, to secure a more orderly transition to net zero by 2050. Economies and societies would need to make significant adjustments in the net-zero transition. Many of these can be best supported through coordinated action by governments, businesses, and enabling institutions. Three categories of action stand out: catalyzing effective capital reallocation, managing demand shifts and near-term unit cost increases, and establishing compensating mechanisms to address socioeconomic impacts. The economic transformation required to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 will be massive in scale and complex in execution, yet the costs and dislocations that would arise from a more disorderly transition would likely be far greater, and the transition would prevent the further buildup of physical risks. It is important not to view the transition as only onerous; the required economic transformation will not only create immediate economic opportunities but also open up the prospect of a fundamentally transformed global economy with lower energy costs, and numerous other benefits—for example, improved health outcomes and enhanced conservation of natural capital.

RELATED ARTICLES

Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

Solving the net-zero equation: Nine requirements for a more orderly transition

• Methodology
• Issues in Focus
• Country Case Studies
• Policy Recommendations

One Health, Zero Hunger

Note: The views expressed in this chapter are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Welthungerhilfe or Concern Worldwide.

FIGURE 2.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL 2 (ZERO HUNGER) AND THE EIGHT TARGETS FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS

A YouTube video is embedded here. When you watch any YouTube video, Google may collect personal data and track your viewing behaviour, as described in their privacy policy .

It’s been a year that none of us could have predicted. Yet in many ways it is a culmination of the predictions we have heard for decades.

Warnings about the emergence of new viral pathogens are nothing new, but the failure to heed or act on those warnings has contributed to the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects.

At the same time, as predicted, humans’ impacts on the environment are leading to more frequent and severe extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, deforestation, and soil degradation. These impacts, when coupled with failure to invest in sound biosecurity practices, contribute to an increasing threat from emerging, boundary-crossing infectious diseases in humans, animals, and plants ( Yadav, Singh, and Malik 2020 ; Royal Society and NAS 2020 ; Gray and Merzdorf 2019 ; Edwards 2017 ; Sundström et al. 2014 ; Seneviratne et al. 2012; Waage and Mumford 2008).

Cyclones have caused widespread damage in many South Pacific island countries and in South Asia in 2020, and heavy rains in usually dry regions have given rise to massive swarms of locusts that threaten crops in East Africa, South Asia, and the Gulf countries. The fall armyworm is decimating staple crops across Africa South of the Sahara and Southeast Asia, and control efforts are complicated by COVID-19 restrictions in many countries ( Bourke and Sar 2020 ; FAO 2020f ).

Unsurprisingly, the overlapping disasters of 2020 have led to economic and health-related hardships across the globe, hampering food security for millions by disrupting agricultural production, the availability of food, and people’s ability to obtain and utilize food, disproportionately harming those living in poverty.

The world was off track to reach Zero Hunger by 2030 even before each of the 2020 disasters exacerbated hunger and undernutrition.

Five years ago, the UN member states committed to 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2: “ End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture ” ( see Figure 2.1 ). After a long, slow, progressive decline, the number of undernourished people started rising in 2015 and continues its upward trajectory. In 2019, even before the recent crises, nearly 690 million people suffered from chronic hunger, and 135 million people experienced acute food crisis . Child stunting and wasting are falling but not fast enough to meet SDG 2 (FAO et al. 2020; FSIN 2020; UN 2019b). Now the health and economic crises generated by the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in income losses, food and labor shortages, and health service disruptions that affect the most vulnerable, threatening to set back progress even further. The World Food Programme warns that an additional 130 million people could be pushed into acute food crisis by the end of 2020, bringing the total to 265 million people ( UN 2020f ).

In the decade leading up to 2030, how can we overcome these shocks and setbacks to achieve Zero Hunger for all? The events of 2020 are laying bare many of the vulnerabilities of the world’s food system; they reveal that it is woefully inadequate for coping with the kinds of overlapping global and regional crises that we are currently experiencing and that we may expect more of by 2030 (FAO et al. 2020; Nguyen 2018). We have seen how the crises disrupt the food and agriculture sector, jeopardize the stability of human, animal, and environmental health, and have lasting implications on the global economy, livelihoods, and food security ( FAO et al. 2020 ; OECD 2020 ). We argue in this essay that by taking an integrated approach to health and food and nutrition security, it is possible to achieve Zero Hunger by 2030. To do so, we must design responses to the current crises and their underlying causes and move forward in ways that support the transformation of the current food system to one that is more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient.

An important element of this endeavor will be to employ a holistic One Health approach. Sectoral responses alone rarely deliver sustained positive outcomes for complex problems such as climate change, chronic hunger, and unsustainable agricultural practices. One Health therefore works to achieve optimal health outcomes based on a recognition of the interconnections between humans, animals, plants, and their shared environment, as well as an understanding of the role of fair trade relations ( CDC 2020 ; FAO 2020j ). While the framing and use of the term “One Health” is relatively new, the concept is not: as far back as the 1800s scientists recognized the similarity in disease processes between animals and humans and coined the term “zoonoses” for diseases that can pass between animals and humans.

More recently, it has become clear that human impacts on planetary health, including land use change, soil depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity loss, are inextricably linked to animal and human health . To prevent, respond to, and recover from such challenges, cooperation among multidisciplinary teams is needed to safeguard agricultural production and public health from natural disasters and boundary-crossing diseases and to ensure that people have access to safe, nutritious, and healthy food. Currently, One Health tends to be implemented through consultation between sectors; it will become fully functional only when circular food, health, and economic systems - based on continual reuse of materials and products and elimination of waste - are implemented at local, national, and global levels ( CHF 2020 ).

The One Health approach - with its focus on increasing sustainable practices in agriculture and improving the overall health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environment - has the potential to be transformative ( Cleaveland et al. 2017 ; Garcia, Osburn, and Jay-Russell 2020 ; Alders et al. 2017 ; Lysaght et al. 2017 ). By highlighting the ways our current challenges are interconnected, One Health points to the need to tackle human, animal, and environmental health holistically in order to avert future health crises, restore a healthy planet, and sustainably end hunger.

Where the Cracks Are Showing: Weak Points in the World Food System

Pressures on planetary and social boundaries.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the fragility of globalized food systems, their inherent inequities, and their inadequacy to provide for healthy people and a healthy planet.

Our globalized food systems pose a threat to human, animal, and environmental health

We are hitting planetary and social boundaries—that is, the ecological ceiling and the social foundation beyond which humans cannot safely and equitably thrive—and our food systems are part of the problem ( Figure 2.2 ; Raworth 2017b). Globally, we are seeking to achieve Zero Hunger at the same time that all societies are grappling with the need to manage the impacts of climate change, emerging diseases, extinctions and loss of bio- and agrodiversity, overconsumption of freshwater, rising rates of malnutrition, soil depletion and degradation, land use change, and biological and chemical pollution, while also meeting their immediate needs within national budgets (Alders et al. 2018; Rampa et al. 2019 ; also see Box 2.1 on the overlapping crises in the Horn of Africa).

One manifestation of the overshooting of planetary boundaries is the increasing frequency of the emergence of new infectious diseases and their rapid spread. As humans have encroached upon and destroyed natural habitats to establish, among other things, pastures for livestock, the result has been that wild animals live closer to areas where humans rear livestock and poultry, exposing domestic animals to a completely new range of pathogens and vectors to which they are highly susceptible. These diseases can spread rapidly, resulting in heavy morbidity and mortality among livestock, trade restrictions, and economic losses ( Garcia, Osburn, and Jay-Russell 2020 ). Domesticated livestock and companion animals have been associated with increased risk of emerging infectious diseases (Johnson et al. 2020, Kock 2014), antimicrobial resistance (Graham et al. 2019), and introduction of disease into susceptible wildlife populations (Yadav, Singh, and Malik 2020). And the spread of COVID-19 shows the simultaneous vulnerability of public health, the economy, and food and nutrition security to emerging diseases.

Our food systems pose health hazards to humans and the environment and have a big part in the rise of emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Through land use change, intensive agriculture, large-scale livestock production, and other practices, food systems have led to agroecological degradation, destroyed habitats, and contributed to climate change (IPES-Food 2017). Indeed, the food system contributes 21–37 percent of total net human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and accounts for 70 percent of freshwater use. Agriculture—cropping and pasturage—occupies nearly 40 percent of global land (Willett et al. 2019; IPCC 2020).

Overall, the huge increase in intensive livestock production has been the most significant cause of the huge loss of biodiversity in recent decades; the extinction rate is now estimated at between 100 and 1,000 times that of preindustrial levels (Ceballos, Ehrlich, and Raven 2020; Ceballos et al. 2015; Pimm et al. 2014; Barnosky et al. 2011). Changing lifestyles and diets in recent decades have led to increased demand for animal-source foods such as eggs, meat, milk, and fish, resulting in higher rates of diet-related noncommunicable disease as well as in the intensification of production systems, overcrowding of animals, and increased risk of animal disease outbreaks and spillovers of disease from animals to humans (Yadav, Singh, and Malik 2020; FAO et al. 2020).

Half of the emerging zoonotic diseases between 1940 and 2005 have been attributed to changes in land use, agricultural practices, and food production (IPES-Food 2017). As land in low- and middle-income countries is converted to grow feed crops for cattle feedlots and intensively raised pigs and poultry in other parts of the world - sometimes as a result of land grabs by rich countries and corporations - the change in land use destroys forests and contributes to loss of carbon sinks (Blanco 2018).

Similarly, a significant part of the animal-source foods imported into low- and middle- income countries come from intensive livestock production in the exporting countries, with adverse impacts on global ecosystems, pastoralists’ livelihoods, and human health (Coordination SUD 2019). At the same time, domestic supply chains show weaknesses that threaten people’s food and nutrition security, including inadequate food preservation facilities for perishable foods such as fruits, vegetables, and animal-source foods (FAO 2017). Since the emergence of COVID-19, there has been an increasing focus on the human-animal-environment disease interface as encompassed in the One Health concept ( Kock et al. 2020 ), with wet markets and their role in pathogen transmission from wildlife to people frequently cited (Restif 2020). However, wet markets have long played a key role in distributing fresh food in many societies and will continue to do so ( Ribeiro et al. 2020 ). In a number of countries, consumers are concerned about a lack of access to affordable animal-source foods (owing to high animal mortality and market failure) and have little confidence in the safety of intensively produced food (Duggan 2015; World Bank 2016a); they worry, for example, about contamination of food with hormones, antibiotics, or pesticide residues. These concerns frequently underlie their preference for non-domesticated animals sold through informal markets ( Alders 2020 ).

Our food systems are inherently unequal and further exacerbate inequities

Global food governance is tilted against low-income countries and smallholder farmers. The world’s increasingly globalized food systems have been accompanied by increasing dependence on food imports by low- and middle-income countries as well as underinvestment in local farmers, farmer associations, and smallholder-oriented value chains (FAO 2014, 2017; Poole and de Frece 2010; McMichael 2013). In 2017 the trade gaps between low- and middle-income countries on the one hand and high-income countries on the other were reported to be widening, with low- and middle-income countries projected to be net importers of meat and dairy products by 2030 (FAO 2017).

Most high-income countries provide international agricultural development assistance designed to help increase smallholder farmers’ production and income in low- and middle-income countries, while at the same time retaining trade advantages through non-tariff barriers to trade (Gourdon and Nicita 2012). Domestic production in low- and middle-income countries cannot compete with cheap imported goods (such as ultra-processed foods or powdered milk) that benefit from subsidized production in the country of origin (Blanco 2018).

Furthermore, some food assistance from high-income countries to low-income countries still requires the recipient country to procure food from a restricted number of countries or award contracts to companies in donor countries, thus weakening local food systems in recipient countries. A considerable share of global food assistance therefore remains an export subsidy masquerading as charity (OECD 2018). While the United Nations food agencies work in pursuit of food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture, trade regulations discount the health impacts of trade in food commodities and can constrain low-income countries’ nutrition policies (Thow et al. 2017). At the same time, the globalization of food systems, along with persistent 19th-century approaches to food prices (that is, pricing based on weight or volume rather than nutrient composition and density) and the siloing of the agricultural, health, and environment sectors, places huge stresses on smallholder livestock keepers, small-scale aquaculture, and family farmers worldwide ( Alders et al. 2016 ).

Given that family farms represent more than 90 percent of all farms globally and produce 80 percent of the world’s food in value terms, supporting these mostly smallholder farmers will be key to achieving SDG 2 ( FAO and IFAD 2019 ).

Lack of secure land tenure and resulting food insecurity are a persistent issue for rural communities, indigenous people, women, and marginalized groups. Land grabs have a long history, from the colonial era to the present, and they continue to increase hunger and distort land management ( Anderson et al. 2019 ). Displacement of smallholder farmers, pastoralists, and indigenous people is ongoing as international investors and corporations seize existing farmland and clear new land for agricultural endeavors across a range of countries (Twomey 2014). These land grabs are frequently driven by global capital and corporate agribusinesses that are responsible not to local land or people but to faraway shareholders (Deininger et al. 2011). A lack of enduring links to this land and its associated ecosystems contributes not only to a reluctance to employ sustainable practices requiring long-term investments in landscapes, including soil and water, but also to ecosystem damage resulting from the expansion of agricultural land into previously uncultivated landscapes, thereby increasing the risk of emergence of new pathogens ( Anderson et al. 2019 ).

Insecure land tenure is a major contributor to degraded land and inadequate diets, the impacts of which are frequently felt more by women and marginalized groups ( Alders et al. 2016 ). Women and other marginalized groups are disproportionately harmed by cultural and legal proscriptions and norms, including unequal access to credit and information, that prevent them from participating fully and equally in agricultural and other livelihood activities and from reaping the benefits of these activities ( Alders et al. 2016 ; Quisumbing et al. 2014).

In Africa South of the Sahara, for example, women play a dominant role in the production, processing, and postharvest storage of food, yet they make up only 15 percent of landholders ( Alders et al. 2016 ). When women have a lower income share within a household, that household spends less of its budget on food (Hopkins, Levin, and Haddad 1994). Widespread and ongoing iron deficiency in women of reproductive age, as well as a higher global malnutrition rate compared with men, reflects systemic discrimination, including within health and nutrition services ( FAO et al. 2020 ; Alders 2018 ). The poor nutritional status of women interferes with their daily activities and livelihoods and crosses generations because poorly nourished women are more likely to give birth to children with a low birth weight (FAO et al. 2020). The 2020 GHI also shows that rural and indigenous regions often present higher rates of child stunting (see 2020 Results ).

Formal and informal education on agriculture and nutrition is insufficiently tailored to local conditions. Individuals’ choices about their diets and farmers’ decisions about their agricultural practices are influenced by factors besides education, but without appropriate educational opportunities it is almost impossible to achieve optimal results, especially in resource-limited circumstances. A series of avoidable barriers mean that too many children lack access to the education necessary to learn life skills and help them thrive (UNICEF 2020b). Vulnerable households often cannot afford the costs associated with schooling or need children to supply farm or household labor (ILO 2020). School curricula are often poorly adapted to local circumstances, including local agroecological zones and marketing systems (Epstein and Yuthas 2012), and insufficient attention is given to understanding sustainable agriculture, human nutrition, and how to meet nutrient requirements with locally available, nutritious food ( Garcia, Osburn, and Jay-Russell 2020 ; CHF 2020 ).

Social protection remains insufficient or misdirected. Support for the most vulnerable - that is, programs to boost the well-being of poor people, children, the elderly, and others through cash transfers, food transfers, subsidies, and social insurance - is crucial for people’s food security during crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the degree to which social protection is lacking. In many low- and middle-income countries, rural households increasingly rely on informal off-farm sources of income and are becoming net food consumers vulnerable to shocks ( Rapsomanikis 2015 ).

Even before COVID-19, 55 percent of the world’s population was not covered by any social protection programs ( Ortiz 2018 ). Carrying out such programs requires significant investment in avenues for connecting with individuals and households, especially those dependent on the informal sector ( Razavi 2020 ). The lack of accurate data on the number of people involved in the informal sector and insufficient government and civil society links with informal networks increase the difficulty of organizing distribution programs. Furthermore, overseas remittances play a critical role in maintaining many households’ incomes and food consumption. Now, as a consequence of COVID-19 control measures, countless migrant workers worldwide are losing their jobs, and remittances to low- and middle-income countries are projected to fall by 19.7 percent to US$445 billion (World Bank 2020d). As unemployed migrant workers return to their home villages, they will place further strain on limited food stocks and social protection programs (Pancawati 2020). Finally, the agricultural and supply chain workers who feed the world receive low wages, have little to no job security (Martin 2016), and are frequently at high risk of contracting COVID-19.

Inadequate emergency responses are disrupting local food systems and fail to support local producers. COVID-19 containment measures, enforced without a clear declaration that agricultural and food services are essential, have endangered food security in many locations ( Swinnen and McDermott 2020 ). Restricted labor mobility in areas dependent on seasonal or migrant laborers and the difficulties associated with accessing markets and transporting food both within and between countries are disrupting food supply chains and hampering people’s access to essential goods and services (FAO et al. 2020).

These restrictions not only cause short-term shocks to food supplies but also weaken local producers’ ability to prepare for the next sowing or production cycle, further diminishing the likelihood of achieving Zero Hunger in the coming decade (UN 2020d). This situation highlights the costly result of failure to coordinate preparedness and response activities between different sectors, such as health, agriculture, and trade.

Building Food Systems for One Health and Zero Hunger

We need to build back better by achieving inclusive, sustainable, and resilient food systems and preserving biodiversity for the future we want (UN 2020b, c). Working to achieve SDG2—Zero Hunger— and its associated targets by 2030 will be a crucial part of this rebuild, but what steps are required? Many immediate needs must be addressed now, and many others must be tackled over the coming decade. If we are to build back better, we will also need to undertake some transformations so monumental they will extend across the next several decades, as food systems and economies are reimagined as part of a net-zero-carbon world. As we pursue the goal of Zero Hunger, a One Health approach points the way toward a future that maximizes the health of humans, animals, and the environment. The following actions constitute a road map for ending hunger and building sustainable food systems now, over the next 10 years, and in the decades to come.

Actions for multilaterals, governments, communities, and individuals to take now

Sustain current food production and distribution. To guarantee ongoing food availability, the production and supply of food must be classified as essential services, and safe working environments must be guaranteed (FAO 2020i). Governments and citizens must also prepare now to ensure all required inputs are available for the next and subsequent planting seasons. As they bolster food supply chains and correct value chain disruptions associated with COVID-19 control measures, governments must work toward reduced food loss and waste in postharvest management and throughout the value chain. Aligning support for agricultural production by smallholder farmers, reducing food dumping, using cash and voucher assistance whenever feasible, and promoting the effective use of perishable food will require intersectoral coordination among governments, nongovernmental organizations, and community-based entities working collaboratively under a One Health banner (World Bank 2020b). Food and nutrition security projects linked with human, animal, and environmental health, such as those implemented by Vétérinaires Sans Frontières International, exemplify the multiple benefits of One Health programs that achieve greater integration of management, farming, food, and disease control aligned with local ecosystems (VSF Europa 2014). Equitable access to new technologies and emergency countermeasures, including diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics for both human and animal disease crises, as well as essential agricultural inputs such as appropriate seeds, must be guaranteed. In addition, governments should fully integrate their national security, health security, and food security strategies to develop sufficient preparedness and response capacity to address a wider array of potential hazards and threats to society.

Ensure governments, donors, and NGOs work closely with community organizations so that social protection measures reach the most vulnerable. Given that so many people affected by COVID-19 are informal workers, the unemployed, and the elderly, community-based and civil society organizations must help reach those unable to gain access to the official social protections on offer. Organizations trusted by communities and authorities are vital to ensuring that cash transfers, essential health care, food transfers, small business grants, and public employment schemes function optimally and fairly. In some areas hit hard by the economic consequences of the pandemic, households’ efforts to meet their food needs are threatening local ecosystems, biodiversity, and endangered species, so it is important to identify options for sustaining their food security in culturally acceptable ways that support human, animal, and planetary health (Poole 2020). In one past example in Chad, joint One Health efforts to combine childhood vaccination programs with cattle vaccination in pastoralist communities demonstrated both increased vaccination coverage and savings of 15 percent compared with the routine practice of separate campaigns for animal and human vaccination (Schelling et al. 2007). These types of innovative and practical One Health solutions, tailored to local needs and circumstances, will be required in a future constrained by the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Improve the coordination and efficiency of regional and international efforts. Regional institutions—especially regional economic communities such as the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—must negotiate strongly with donors and groups such as the World Trade Organization on behalf of low- and middle-income countries to shore up their own regional food supply chains and ensure access to the technologies, countermeasures, and expertise needed to respond to acute shocks like COVID-19 and the locust crisis. Key international agricultural programs should address the immediate crises and be replenished in accordance with evaluation findings, such as IFAD’s Scaling Up Evaluation Synthesis (IFAD 2017). Food assistance should also be designed to support local food systems in the recipient country. As part of this effort, all food assistance should be untied from the requirement to acquire donor-country commodities and from the continuing obligation to primarily use donor countries’ logistics, storage, and distribution companies, as recommended by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2019). This would give recipient countries the flexibility to adopt best-value-for-money options for feeding their populations and implementing their food security strategies (Cardwell and Ghazalian 2020; Jaspars and Leather 2005). During the current crisis, governments and multilateral bodies must document and analyze the impacts of disruptions to international and national supply lines through a One Health and equity-sensitive lens to ensure efficient, equitable food production. The distribution of agricultural inputs, including credit and extension services, must not be subject to gender-based or other forms of discrimination. Finally, a number of key international summits are planned for 2021, including the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth Summit, the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UN Food Systems Summit. The participants in these summits, as well as the global community, should ensure that the recommendations are well coordinated, coherent, and complementary; that they are actually implemented; and that they center on promoting the health of humans, animals, plants, and the planet. One example of what is possible when sectors, disciplines, and countries work together for the common good is the launch of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity in 2005, which has advanced the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, guided by fair and equitable sharing of benefits.

Actions for multilaterals, governments, communities, and individuals to take by 2030

Use lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises to build safe, resilient food systems that can prevent complex emergencies and better respond to them. Global agreements and action on sustainable food systems must bring all stakeholders to the table (FAO et al. 2020). To improve transparency and accountability, it is important to remove the friction between multilateral agencies, government ministries, and NGOs generated by overlapping mandates and competition for increasingly scarce resources. Huge trade and investment disparities between low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries perpetuate food system inequity and inefficiency, and these must be addressed. In response to shocks to food systems, high-income countries and the international community must address short-term symptoms (such as by providing food and cash or vouchers to vulnerable individuals and households and improving wet market facilities and hygiene standards) without harming the livelihoods of local food producers. Stakeholders must commit to dealing with the issues underlying chronic food and nutrition insecurity, loss of faith in food safety, and inadequate remuneration of farmers, producers, and other key participants within a resilient food system. They must significantly increase investments in agricultural research and development, food quality and safety, and human health, and they must ensure that domestic and international policy making, implementation, monitoring, and impact assessments are inclusive.

Carry out a global, multisectoral review of food, health, and economic systems through a One Health lens to chart a sustainable and resilient pathway for governments and donors that paves the way for environmental recovery. This review should be convened and implemented by a neutral entity with representatives from the public, private, and civil society sectors across all geographical regions. Among other things, it must address the need to strengthen data collection in order to better monitor the management of agricultural and natural resources on which smallholder food systems rely and to support the surveillance of animal, zoonotic, and foodborne diseases. Biosecurity legislation will need to take into account findings on crises such as COVID-19, the locust plague, fall army worm infestations, and African swine fever to enable the transparent trade of safe, high-quality food commodities and agricultural inputs that adhere to agreed-upon standards. Evidence on the impact of crises on low- and middle-income countries and on vulnerabilities in high-income countries, including evidence on how malnutrition increases health risks from pandemics, provides lessons that should be used to accelerate ongoing reforms, such as universal health coverage, global health security, and disaster risk reduction commitments. A new global coordination mechanism is required to enable food and other allied international thematic institutions to align policies in support of resilience and sustainable food systems (United Nations General Assembly 2019; UN 1992; WHO 2005; UNDRR 2015). These efforts must be accompanied by enhanced investments in sustainable food systems at the territorial level—including, where feasible, through properly regulated mechanisms blending public and private finance, such as public guarantees and responsible and just governance of tenure of land, fisheries, and forests (FAO 2012)—to reduce the investment risk associated with the food and agriculture sector.

Take a One Health approach to invest in sustainable food production, distribution, and nutrient recycling. Smallholders and input supply services must be provided with the knowledge and inputs to make their production systems more resilient and sufficiently profitable so they can meet their nutrient requirements either directly through their own production or indirectly through fair farm-gate prices that allow them to purchase safe and nutritious food ( CHF 2020 ). Given the importance of diversifying both food production and consumption to achieve more sustainable and resilient food systems and better nutritional outcomes through sustainable healthy diets ( Alders et al. 2016 ; FAO and WHO 2019), nutritious but neglected food species amenable to sustainable harvesting should be integrated into smallholder household livelihood strategies. A One Health approach that engages various sectors and disciplines will help identify options that enable households to use the food resources available to them across the seasons of the year and work with them to identify optimal practices (Wong et al. 2018). The reintroduction of river prawns upstream from the Diama Dam along the Senegal River is an example of this type of One Health approach in action. The project provides a regionally tailored, sustainable approach to the control of schistosomiasis—a disease that affects some 240 million people across the world—while enabling the restoration of a previously established source of food and income for local fisheries (Sokolow et al. 2015; Shaikh, Rahman- Shepherd, and Dar 2018). Governments and donors need to promote effective smallholder production and marketing organizations; cost-efficient food preservation, marketing, and food safety systems, including improved postharvest management; better linkages between rural and urban areas to shorten supply chains (increasing the resilience of local food systems to international shocks); agroecological approaches that match plant varieties, animal breeds, and farming systems with local conditions and tailored educational and vocational training (FAO 2020a); and efficient recycling of nutrient-rich organic waste (Alders et al. 2016). These activities must run in parallel with strengthened coordination across agriculture, education, finance, human health, and water, sanitation, and hygiene to generate synergistic outcomes, both horizontally and vertically. Evidence-based approaches to managing wet markets (including improved measures for preventing and controlling infection and disease surveillance systems) and options for effectively preserving animal-source foods, fruits, and vegetables are essential to support people’s access to and use of safe, nutritious, diverse foods. Finally, significantly reducing industrial livestock production while ensuring access for those who need animal-source food the most—undernourished pregnant and lactating mothers and infants in the first 1,000 days of life in resource-poor settings (Grace et al. 2018)—would offer clear gains: more competitive pricing of local products in low- and middle-income countries, recovery of the environment and biodiversity, mitigation of climate change drivers (Jackson et al. 2020; Young 2018), reduced global risk of emerging and persistent zoonotic diseases (Alders et al. 2013), and reduction of malnutrition (Grace et al. 2018).

Implement formal and informal education programs that match people’s circumstances. School curricula should be tailored to local conditions, including local agroecological zones and marketing systems. Students should be introduced to the One Health concept early on (Thomson 2020) and instructed in human nutrition and how to meet the nutrient requirements of girls, boys, women, and men with locally available, nutritious food to ensure good outcomes for human well-being, food and nutrition security, and natural resources ( Garcia, Osburn, and Jay-Russell 2020 ; CHF 2020 ). In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, farmer field schools and care group programs for women and children have been shown to be particularly effective.

Support regional trade initiatives that include social and environmental metrics. Trade agreements should do more than merely pursue short-term economic gains at the macro level. The 193 countries that signed the SDGs have committed to SDG 17.10: “a universal, rulesbased, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization” (WTO 2020). These countries must push global agricultural, environmental, and trade institutions to deliver a harmonized policy framework that is good for food producers, consumers, the environment, and the economy.

Actions for multilaterals, governments, communities, and individuals to take beyond 2030

Globally and nationally affirm food and nutrition security as a key component of human health, as outlined in the 2019 United Nations Political Declaration on Universal Health Coverage . Acknowledging the key role of food and nutrition security will require balancing multilateral and national budget allocations across food-related sectors and harmonizing policies related to emergency response, agriculture, education, and health.

Develop and implement circular economic systems that promote sustainable local agricultural production along with climate-friendly and fair global trade of agricultural products and food. A circular economy recycles resources and materials to keep them continually in use, regenerates natural systems, and eliminates waste and pollution ( CHF 2020 ). In a food system, a circular economy requires producers, consumers, companies, and governments to reduce the amount of waste generated in the food system, safely reuse leftover food, make use of by-products and food waste, recycle nutrients, and implement systems to manage food waste and surpluses so they are not lost to the system (Jurgilevich et al. 2016; Figure 2.3 ). The provision of affordable, fresh, healthy food is vital to ending malnutrition and improving well-being, making it essential for food producers and consumers to have more information about the larger systems in which they operate. Internationally based, locally adapted frameworks—developed collaboratively by governments, the private sector, and specialist civil society organizations—can inform these producers and consumers whether the landscapes that produce food are healthy and whether the food itself is becoming more or less nutritious. The key is to balance healthy and equitable food environments with just and sustainable remuneration of family farmers, fishers, and producers, enabling them to care for both their households and their land and aquatic environments ( Alders et al. 2016 ). To achieve sustainable and equitable food systems, food must be valued not only by its weight or volume, but also by its nutrient density and freedom from biological and chemical contamination.

Conclusion: International Solidarity and Sustainable Values

We are likely to face more shocks and challenges on our way to 2030, even as we work to build a food system that can sustainably support a healthy, food-secure, well-nourished human population with Zero Hunger. The 2020 GHI findings highlight the food insecurity challenges facing low-income countries as they battle multiple crises. Right now, low- and middle-income countries can make progress by including marginalized groups in policy making, working together more effectively at the regional level to increase their negotiating power on the global stage, and ensuring shorter food supply chains within their regions. Both now and moving forward, they can carry out policies and programs that promote the well-being of female and male smallholder farmers and engage communities with agricultural production and food systems that are economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable.

We must not forget, however, that low- and middle-income countries cannot achieve the SDG 2 targets by 2030 without the full engagement of high-income countries. If Zero Hunger and the associated SDG 2 targets are to be met, high-income countries must also be active, positive contributors to dialogue and change. Among other things, they will need to use trade policy tools to create market incentives for sustainable food economies, untie aid and design food assistance to strengthen local and regional food systems, and change how agricultural products and services are valued so that nutrient content and ecosystem services are appropriately integrated into pricing mechanisms. A global transformation to a set of circular economies that feed all people through more sustainable food systems will not be completed by 2030, but by acting together we can achieve Zero Hunger while laying a solid foundation for a healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable world.

OVERLAPPING CRISES IN THE GREATER HORN OF AFRICA

Alliance2015.

Many countries face overlapping health, hunger, and eco-nomic crises, but the challenges confronting the Greater Horn of Africa loom especially large. In a region already home to large numbers of people affected by chronic and acute hunger, the COVID-19 pandemic comes on top of a severe locust infestation, ongoing conflict and instability, a series of extreme weather events induced by climate change, and a history of massive forced displacement (see figures below). Measures to contain the pandemic have created negative social and eco-nomic effects, complicated treatment of the locust infestation, and pose an unprecedented challenge to food security and nutrition. If the responses to the diverse challenges are not carefully coordinated, a food crisis will loom large in the region.

Source: Authors, based on IPC (2020), UNHCR (2020b), World Bank (2020e), and Johns Hopkins University and Medicine (2020).

Note: Colors of countries correspond to the GHI Severity Scale .

a People categorized as being in food crisis, emergency, or famine by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Ethiopia: Feb–June 2020 projection; Kenya: April–July 2020 projection, arid and semi-arid lands; Somalia: as of April–June 2020; South Sudan: May–July 2020 projection; Sudan: as of June–August 2019. b Total number of refugees, asylum seekers, returnees, and internally displaced persons as of June 2020. c For comparison, in 2017 the number of physicians per 100,000 averaged 80 in South Asia and 156.6 for the world as a whole. d As of September 2, 2020.

Hunger is already widespread. For the past two decades, countries in the region have experienced serious , alarming , or extremely alarming GHI levels. In May 2020, more than 25.3 million people in the region faced acute food insecurity at crisis levels or worse. More than 11 million of these people live in areas infested by desert locusts, and their number is expected to grow as the locust swarm expands (IPC 2020).

The Horn of Africa commonly experiences severe droughts and floods, and extreme weather has contributed to the region’s worst infestation of desert locusts in decades. For the past nine rainy seasons, farmers and pastoralists in East Africa have experienced either severe flooding or scarce or failed rains, from which they are still recovering. All countries in the region are highly vulnerable to climate change but are ill prepared to deal with its effects (ND GAIN 2020; von Grebmer et al. 2019). As a result of two cyclones in 2018, heavy rains in the Arabian Peninsula generated a massive upsurge of desert locusts, exacerbated by another cyclone in late 2019. The swarms are destroying up to 100 percent of crops and fodder—a massive threat in a region where most of the population relies on agriculture. A swarm measuring one square kilometer can contain up to 80 million adult locusts, with the capacity to consume the same amount of food in one day as 35,000 people (FAO 2020k). As of April 2020, 200,000 hectares of cropland had been damaged and 356,000 metric tons of cereals had been lost in Ethiopia alone (FAO 2020l). Given that swarms can travel up to 150 kilometers a day, the risk is high that the locusts will spread not only across neighboring countries, but across the Indian Ocean to join the swarms already spreading in India and Pakistan (FAO 2020k, n).

Armed conflict, turbulent political transformation, widespread forced displacement, and poor governance have left many countries ill equipped to respond to crises. In Ethiopia and Somalia, a fragile political context and mistrust in the state prevail, and acceptance of COVID-19 containment measures is dwindling. The health and social protection systems in the region are largely unable to treat widespread diseases, such as tuberculosis, let alone respond to COVID-19 (Weber 2020). The region is home to more than 11 million refugees, asylum seekers, returnees, and internally displaced people (UNHCR 2020b). The Dadaab refugee complex, one of the largest such complexes in the world, lies in Eastern Kenya, near neighboring Somalia. In densely populated refugee camps and marginalized urban settlements, inadequate housing conditions and poor water and sanitation make it challenging for people to take preventive measures like hand-washing and physical distancing (Rudloff and Weber 2020).

The COVID-19 pandemic and measures designed to contain it are having severe social and economic effects that are worsening hunger and undernutrition. Like economies in other world regions, the already weak economies in the Greater Horn of Africa are likely to slip into recession. With limited medical capacity, countries in the region have relied heavily on border closures, travel restrictions, and strict lockdowns to flatten the infection curve. These measures, however, have hindered supply chains in the region, disrupting the availability of food in the markets as well as people’s ability to gain access to it. Restrictions have also hampered farmers’ access to agricultural inputs and their ability to cultivate their land (FAO and WFP 2020; IPC 2020). Urban residents who rely on the informal economy have been particularly hard hit, with market closures and restrictions on transport and mobility leaving them unable to generate income, to build up food reserves, or to provide for their families. Even rural populations that rely largely on subsistence farming are affected because they often buy some foods from markets (Rudloff and Weber 2020). Food prices were already high in some countries in the region, and poor harvests due to droughts and floods and COVID-19 countermeasures are aggravating the situation (FAO 2020m). A survey conducted in Addis Ababa in April 2020 showed that many households were already consuming more staple foods and fewer fruits and vegetables because more nutritious and balanced diets were unavailable and unaffordable (Hirvonen, Abate, and de Brauw 2020). Projections already warn that in the region more people could die from the socioeconomic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself (WFP 2020c).

This complex situation—an already fragile context combined with a severe locust infestation and COVID-19—could lead to a massive humanitarian crisis, and measures to cope with it must be planned holistically. An approach that focuses only on one crisis at a time may inadvertently exacerbate the other crises, which are all interlinked. Cross-border events require multilateral cooperation (such as between governments and with the Regional Desert Locust Alliance, FAO, and OCHA). Because the overlapping crises have different dynamics in urban and rural areas, they require distinct responses, but realities in urban and rural areas also influence each other and must be considered together.

TIMELINE OF NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE GREATER HORN OF AFRICA, 2018–2020

• “Food crisis” here refers to the crisis phase (phase 3), or worse, of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC/CH) (FSIN 2020; IPC Global Partners 2019).  
• See, for example, FAO et al. (2008); One Health Joint European Program (2020); and FAO (2020o).  

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Hunger — World Hunger Solution: Global Goal Called ‘Zero Hunger’

World Hunger Solution: Global Goal Called 'Zero Hunger'

• Categories: Hunger

About this sample

Words: 628 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 628 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

World hunger essay outline, world hunger essay example, works cited, introduction.

• Statistics on child deaths due to poor nutrition
• Importance of nutrition for human health

The Global Hunger Problem

• Overview of the worldwide issue of insufficient food intake
• High unemployment rates and low-income levels contributing to hunger
• Challenges faced by those unable to afford regular meals

Solutions to Address Hunger

• Use of social media to raise awareness about hunger issues
• The role of websites in promoting awareness and facilitating donations

The Impact of Taking Action

• Improved well-being and happiness for those receiving help
• The potential for a positive societal change
• Consequences of inaction on the increasing death rate due to hunger
• The significant role of nutrition in human life
• The call to action for donations and support
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015: Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress.
• Global Hunger Index. (2021). 2021 Global Hunger Index: One Decade to Zero Hunger: Linking Health and Sustainable Food Systems.
• Global Nutrition Report. (2020). Global Nutrition Report 2020: Action on Equity to End Malnutrition. Retrieved from https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2020-global-nutrition-report/
• International Food Policy Research Institute. (2021). Global Hunger Index: Interactive Map. Retrieved from https://www.ifpri.org/map/global-hunger-index
• Potts, J. (2019). Undernutrition. In Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability (Vol. 4, pp. 426-433). Elsevier.
• Ruel, M. T., & Alderman, H. (2013). Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: How can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? The Lancet, 382(9891), 536-551.
• The Lancet. (2013). Maternal and Child Nutrition Series.
• UNICEF. (2021). UNICEF Data: Monitoring the Situation of Children and Women.
• United Nations. (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf
• World Health Organization. (2020). Hunger and Health: Frequently Asked Questions.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 567 words

3 pages / 1399 words

2 pages / 1099 words

2 pages / 967 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Hunger

Child hunger is a heartbreaking issue that persists in the United States despite its status as a developed nation. This essay will delve into the prevalence and underlying causes of child hunger in America, explore the dire [...]

World Hunger is a huge problem around the world that could be fixed. around the world we have 815 million deaths a year, it is also 45% of all childhood deaths. Also, you’ll need to know what other things people go through if [...]

Hunger remains a pressing issue in America, affecting millions of individuals and families across the country. By critically analyzing the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to this problem, we can gain a deeper [...]

World hunger is one of the most pressing global issues facing us today. It is a problem that affects millions of people, particularly in developing countries. According to the World Food Programme, an estimated 690 million [...]

Hunger can be defined as a feeling of discomfort or weakness that you get when you need something to eat. Everyone feels hungry and most people are able to satisfy their craving. Hunger is also defined as a severe lack of food [...]

In a country as wealthy and prosperous as the United States, it is difficult to fathom that hunger is still a prevalent issue. Despite the abundance of resources and opportunities, many individuals and families struggle to put [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Get IGI Global News

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases

Call for Chapters: Business Sustainability Practices in Society 5.0

Call for chapters, introduction, target audience, recommended topics, submission procedure.

Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit on or before July 28, 2024 , a chapter proposal of 1,000 to 2,000 words clearly explaining the mission and concerns of his or her proposed chapter. Authors will be notified by August 11, 2024 about the status of their proposals and sent chapter guidelines.Full chapters of a minimum of 10,000 words (word count includes references and related readings) are expected to be submitted by November 10, 2024 , and all interested authors must consult the guidelines for manuscript submissions at https://www.igi-global.com/publish/contributor-resources/before-you-write/ prior to submission. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-anonymized review basis. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers for this project.

Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for manuscripts submitted to this book publication, Business Sustainability Practices in Society 5.0. All manuscripts are accepted based on a double-anonymized peer review editorial process.

All proposals should be submitted through the eEditorial Discovery ® online submission manager.

This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), an international academic publisher of the "Information Science Reference" (formerly Idea Group Reference), "Medical Information Science Reference," "Business Science Reference," and "Engineering Science Reference" imprints. IGI Global specializes in publishing reference books, scholarly journals, and electronic databases featuring academic research on a variety of innovative topic areas including, but not limited to, education, social science, medicine and healthcare, business and management, information science and technology, engineering, public administration, library and information science, media and communication studies, and environmental science. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit https://www.igi-global.com . This publication is anticipated to be released in 2025.

Important Dates

July 28, 2024 : Proposal Submission Deadline August 11, 2024 : Notification of Acceptance November 10, 2024 : Full Chapter Submission January 12, 2025 : Review Results Returned February 23, 2025 : Final Acceptance Notification March 9, 2025 : Final Chapter Submission

Kittisak Jermsittiparsert Shinawatra University [email protected] Ismail Wekke Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Sorong [email protected] Pannee Suanpang Suan Dusit University [email protected]

Classifications