A few weeks ago the Guardian published an article under the heading “Half of world’s children exposed to at least three climate hazards, Unicef says” and sub-heading “Almost every child, including those from high-income countries, is now exposed to at least one hazard”. As the heading suggests, the article was based on a Report ublished by Unicef. And as the Report’s title (“Children’s Climate Risk Report 2026”) makes clear, it is all about pushing the climate change agenda – not surprising really, since this is an offshoot of the United Nations, the keeper of the climate alarmism torch.

I feel as though I am being a little churlish in criticising the report. After all, Unicef does a lot of valuable work, and there is much about it that is praiseworthy. On the other hand, no organisation is perfect, and Unicef certainly doesn’t have an unblemished record, as can be seen in connection with issues reported here and here.

It’s fair, therefore, to take a look at the Report to see if it provides an objective analysis, or whether (as is so often the case with reports of this type) it’s more in the nature of propaganda. As is the way with these things, it runs to more than 100 pages, so what follows will inevitably be selective, though I will strive to be fair and not simply to cherry pick examples that make my case.

The introduction seeks to claim that there is a “staggering number of children already exposed to climate-related hazards globally” and the claim made in the report is truly staggering (and, frankly, unbelievable). The claim is that “[a]lmost all children are now exposed to at least one of the following climate hazards” – the hazards in question being riverine floods, coastal floods, droughts, tropical storms, heatwaves, extreme heat, fires, sand and dust storms. Naturally this is because (according to the IPCC) “several climate hazards have increased in frequency and intensity”. To hammer the point home, we are told that “[g]lobally, 1.1 billion children are exposed to at least three overlapping climate hazards.” Since Unicef tells us that there are just over 2.4 million people under the world under the age of 18, this amounts to a claim that almost half of the world’s children are exposed to at least three climate hazards.

On Page 5, within the executive summary, six issues are highlighted: health services; nutrition services; water, sanitation and hygiene services; education services; child protection services; and social protection services. An attempt is made in each case to link these to climate problems, but the links are pretty tenuous, e.g with regard to health services:

In 2024, 20 million children missed out on life-saving vaccines, including 14.3 million children who did not receive a single dose of a diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis-containing vaccine. Climate shocks could further worsen existing vulnerabilities by destroying clinics, disrupting vaccine cold chains and increasing the spread of diseases.

That’s speculation, bordering on propaganda, not objective analysis based on hard data. Then comes the admission (still on page 5):

The ability of governments to reduce children’s vulnerability and increase their capacity to cope with and adapt to climate hazards is often affected by wider structural constraints”.

This, of course, goes to the nub of the issue – poverty (and other factors, such as corruption) represents a much more critical factor with regard to the well-being of children globally.

Page 12 lists the numbers of children it is alleged are subject to particular climate hazards (with numbers exposed to multiple hazards also supplied). I would be more impressed with this as a seious analysis if it measured the trend in these numbers, adjusted in accordance with the growth or decline in the numbers of children in countries that are particularly exposed to these risks. Only in that way would we possibly learn something about whether climate change is making things worse for children.

Each section seeks to offer up examples of children affected by climate (by climate change?) under the headings offered up earlier in the report.

Floods

On page 18 (et seq.) the report discusses floods. It tells us that “[t]hese [flood] impacts will continue to grow as climate change intensifies. According to the IPCC, flood risk and damage are projected to increase with every increment in global warming.” But that doesn’t tells us that they have already done so, and in the absence of a trendline, anything else is speculation. Then it acknowledges that other factors are at play: “In many countries, rapid urbanization without adequate planning or resilience infrastructure is increasing people’s exposure to flooding.”

Riverine flood risk, we are told, “is highest along major rivers such as the Brahmaputra, Congo, Ganges, Indus, Nile and Yellow River. In Suriname, over 75 per cent of children live in riverine flood hazard zones. More than 50 per cent of children in Bangladesh, Guyana and Iraq are in areas with a high likelihood of riverine flooding.” No surprises there. But there is no analysis as to whether those numbers have increased and, if so, whether that is because of increased numbers of children living in those zones, worsening flooding (extent, numbers of incidents, etc) and/or other factors (such as the “rapid urbanization without adequate planning or resilience infrastructure” mentioned above).

In the absence of that sort of analysis, this tells us nothing with regard to the impact (if any) of climate change with regard to infant vulnerability to flooding.

Droughts

Page 20 et seq. deal with droughts. The claim is that 1.8 billion children (i.e. around two-thirds of all children globally) are affected by droughts. As regards climate change, the specific claim is:

Drought has always been a part of the natural variability of Earth’s climate but human-induced climate change is increasing the frequency, intensity and duration of droughts.

One of the countries most affected by drought, according to the Unicef report, is Bangladesh. However, whilst climate change may be playing a part here, there are other (almost certainly much greater) factors – which the report doesn’t mention – at play. A study from last year, by Monir, Sarker, Biswas & Islam (“Assessment of the environmental impacts of regional groundwater flow path fluctuations in the water-stressed drought prone Northern Region of Bangladesh”) states:

Over 31% of the region of the study site is now experiencing severe and extreme drought owing to variations in the groundwater levels. The extraction of groundwater for irrigation, which has a substantial adverse impact on ecological systems and agro-agricultural output of the study area. The current situation of the Northern Bangladesh will be deteriorated significantly if we do not reduce the groundwater discharge from deep aquifers for irrigation and reduce the use of surface water….

…In the past 30–40 years, increased groundwater pumping for extra food production and higher irrigation needs in Northwestern Bangladesh have led to lower groundwater levels and longer delays. Groundwater extraction continues to be substantial, potentially exceeding 20 billion cubic meters annually, where around 3 million pumps used for irrigation across the country.

Why could this be? Population growth presumably has a lot to do with it. According to Worldometers the population of Bangladesh in 1950 was just over 41.2 million, whereas today it is almost 177.9 million. In other words it has more than quadrupled in three-quarters of a century. Food security no doubt remains a worry for many people in Bangladesh, and I do not underplay it. However, despite the massive increase in population, Bangladesh has, happily, seen no significant famines for more than half a century – despite climate change. The 1943 Bengal famine may have killed up to 3.8 million people (depending on who you believe – the minimum figure I have seen quoted is 800,000). The 1974 famine was devastating. According to Wikipedia the Bangladeshi government sought to minimise its severity and claimed “only” 27,000 deaths. Others put the figure as high as 1.5 million. It is difficult, when confronted with these numbers, to claim that climate change is making famine worse in Bangladesh. The issue there with droughts appears to be related to population growth and unsustainable water extraction.

The Unicef report also highlights Nigeria, Pakistan and Tanzania as other countries severely affected by droughts. Similar points could be made in respect of these countries too. The population of Pakistan (again, according to Worldometers) is today 259.3 million, whereas in 1950 it stood at less than 35.9 million. In other words, it has more than sextupled in three-quarters of a century. If one believes the Friday Times Pakistan’s water/drought problem is caused by massive water extraction, with particular ironies involved, especially in the Punjab:

Beneath Punjab’s lush green fields, a reservoir is running dry — and nobody is counting the drops. For decades, the subterranean aquifers of Punjab have been the unsung lifeline of our agrarian economy. Today, however, a macabre combination of policy paralysis, technological shifts, and institutional neglect is draining these hidden reserves at a breakneck pace, leaving behind a toxic legacy of salinity and scarcity.

The sheer scale of this extraction is staggering. Pakistan is the third-largest user of groundwater for irrigation globally, with a whopping 73% of its agricultural footprint relying directly or indirectly on groundwater. Out of the 68 billion cubic meters (bcm) of groundwater extracted nationally, a lion’s share — 60 bcm — is pumped from beneath the earth, and Punjab alone accounts for 90% of this massive depletion. To put it bluntly, we are extracting water at a rate 142% higher than the rate at which nature can replenish it….

…The groundwater table is declining at an alarming rate of 0.5 to 1.0 meters per annum. Pre- and post-monsoon piezometer readings from boreholes reveal that districts such as Pakpattan, Okara, and Multan are witnessing annual declines of 1.81 feet, 1.72 feet, and 1.52 feet, respectively. In volumetric terms, Okara and Rahim Yar Khan alone are losing approximately 4.15 and 4.08 million acre-feet (MAF) of groundwater annually. Cumulatively, Punjab’s groundwater withdrawals have surpassed a staggering 53 MAF — narrowly mirroring the province’s entire allocated share of canal surface water, which stands at 56 MAF.

How did we get here? The answer lies in a paradoxical twist of technology. In 1960, Punjab had merely 4,500 tube wells; today, that number has expanded to more than 1.5 million. Historically, the high cost of electricity and diesel acted as a natural, albeit unintended, regulator. Farmers pumped water only when absolutely necessary. The advent of solar panels, however, has altered this equation. With the sun powering pumps almost free of cost, groundwater extraction has become easier, leading to excessive and continuous pumping. When water is perceived as free, it is often treated as limitless.

You won’t read any of that in a Unicef Report with the title “Children’s Climate Risk Report 2026”.

Turning briefly to Nigeria. Worldometers tells us that its population today is over 242.5 million, compared to a population of less than 37.3 million in 1950. In three-quarters of a century, the population has grown to more than six times its level in 1950. According to the Hope Spring charity while dry periods may be extending in Nigeria thanks to climate change, it represents a fairly small part of a much bigger problem:

At its core, the Nigeria water crisis is about access. Nigeria is not short of water resources in theory. The country has rivers, groundwater reserves, and seasonal rainfall. The problem lies in who can actually reach safe water and who cannot….

…To comprehend why there is a water crisis in Nigeria, we must look beyond simple explanations. Nigeria isn’t running out of water, the country possesses approximately 359 billion cubic meters of water resources. The crisis stems from infrastructure failures, governance challenges, and environmental pressures that prevent this abundant resource from reaching those who need it.

Nigeria’s water infrastructure tells a story of decades of neglect. Access to piped water services plummeted from 32% in 1990 to just 3% in 2015. In Lagos, only one in ten households receive public water supply.

Where infrastructure exists, it operates at just 15% of capacity, vast potential wasted through poor management. This failure forces communities toward unsafe alternatives. While 200,000 boreholes were installed across Lagos by 2019, many near landfills contain heavy metals and carcinogens, transforming one crisis into another….

Tanzania’s population has grown from just over 7.6 million in 1950 to more than 72.6 million today. In three-quarters of a century its population has increased ninefold. Whilst it would be wrong to dismiss climate change in connection with Tanzania’s water shortages, it is only one of many factors at play. As the World Bank makes clear:

Tanzania is endowed with relatively abundant freshwater sources…The available annual renewable water resources in Tanzania are estimated at 125,763 MCM per year which includes 104,568 MCM of surface water and 21,195 MCM of groundwater. The estimate is equivalent to an average of 2,105 m³/cap/yr, which is above the global agreed Water Stress Indicator of 1,700m³/cap/yr. However, the amount of renewable water resources in the country is decreasing with time, leading to a reduction of the available annual average per capita due to different reasons including climate change effects, inadequate water security infrastructures, increase of population, social economic activities and catchment degradation. These demands continued and deliberate efforts on integrated water resources management and development for sustainable water supply and sanitation services.

As an aside, there can be many reasons why countries or places experience a shortage of water. Only this week the Guardian has published an article with the heading “Who is ‘stealing’ Bali’s water? How tourism siphoned off a prized resource”. It states:

Bali recorded more than 16 million tourists in 2024, four times its permanent population. While tourism is a big part of Bali’s economy, that volume of visitors has not only changed the skyline but also the island’s relationship to water: tourism consumes over 65% of Balis’ fresh water.

Tourism, not climate change.

Tropical Storms

Page 23 et seq. of the Unicef report deal with tropical storms. Many of the claims about climate change in the report are footnoted, with references to e.g. IPCC reports to back them up. This claim isn’t backed up:

There is clear evidence that climate change is increasing the intensity of tropical storms. Warmer sea surface temperatures and higher atmospheric moisture levels contribute to more powerful storms with greater precipitation. This intensification is linked to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, which have led to observable changes in storm patterns and behaviours.

Perhaps the lack of a footnote to any IPCC report is because chapter 11 of IPCC AR6 doesn’t offer much support. Bear in mind that references to SREX within IPCC reports are to Special Reports of Working Groups I and II of the IPCC: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation:

The SREX (Chapter 3) concluded that there is low confidence in observed long-term (40 years or more) trends in TC intensity, frequency, and duration, and any observed trends in phenomena such as tornadoes and hail; it is likely that extratropical storm tracks have shifted poleward in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and that heavy rainfalls and mean maximum wind speeds associated with TCs will increase with continued greenhouse gas warming; it is likely that the global frequency of TCs will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, while it is more likely than not that the frequency of the most intense storms will increase substantially in some ocean basins; there is low confidence in projections of small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail storms; and there is medium confidence that there will be a reduced frequency and a poleward shift of mid-latitude cyclones due to future anthropogenic climate change.

Note also:

Identifying past trends in TC metrics remains a challenge due to the heterogeneous character of the historical instrumental data, which are known as ‘best-track’ data (Schreck et al., 2014). There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics due to changes in the technology used to collect the best-track data.

So much for the IPCC. What does the Unicef report say?

Well, apart from the dubious claim above, it’s the usual suspects:

Over 80 per cent of global exposure is found in 10 countries including Bangladesh, Madagascar, Mozambique, Philippines and Viet Nam.

We’ve already looked at population growth in Bangladesh. Worldometer statistics suggest that (figures are from 1950 to date in each case) Madagascar’s population has increased from just under 4 million to just over 33.5 million; Mozambique’s has increased from just over 5.9 million to almost 36.7 million; the Phillipines has increased from just under 18.85 million to more than 117.75 million; and Vietnam’s from 25.1 million to more than 102 million. They represent a growth in three-quarters of a century to more than eight times; more than six times; more than six times; and more than four times. Perhaps population growth is more problematic than climate change? Also, if climate change is so problematic, how are the populations in the countries which are claimed to be worst affected, growing at such dramatic rates?

For the record, though, it’s worth noting that Bangladesh is seeing hugely reduced fatalities from tropical storms, despite a massively rising population. The National Library of Medicine says:

Bangladesh is especially vulnerable to tropical cyclones, with around 718 000 deaths from them in the past 50 years. However, cyclone-related mortality in Bangladesh has declined by more than 100-fold over the past 40 years, from 500 000 deaths in 1970 to 4234 in 2007.

Madagascar and Mozambique have certainly seen significant problems associated with cyclones in recent years. Perhaps the situation there is getting worse, but as always, we must remember that the 24/7 coverage available today in a world with the internet is much greater than in earlier times when news might take months to arrive with western news reporters (if it arrived at all), by which time it might not be regarded as newsworthy. For example the cyclone that devastated Chinde (in modern Mozambique) in 1922 was barely reported at the time, but we do know (rather bizarrely, from the Christchurch Star of 8^th March 1922) that:

Chinde wiped out. A terrific cyclone. Further details of the Chinde cyclone show that ten steamers were sunk or driven ashore, and eight Europeans and sixty natives drowned. The town is practically blotted out.

That was the total extent of the coverage. Today the Guardian and the BBC would each (with justification) be reporting for days or weeks on the effects of the cyclone and its aftermath.

The Phillipines are generally considered to be among the countries most vulnerable to tropical storms, and they have taken something of a battering in recent years. But then, this has always been the case. Look at this record of such storms from 1900 to 1902, for example. Or how about this: “When History Repeats Itself: Typhoon Haiyan and Its 1897 Predecessor in the Philippines”:

We… compared the surge heights from ST Haiyan with a similar event from an unnamed typhoon in October 1897 (Ty 1897). Strong winds estimated to be in excess of 280 km h-1 and a ‘tsunami-like’ surge with heights typically ranging from 5 m up to 7 m struck in the early hours of 8 November 2013. According to eyewitness accounts this represents an event in the region of unprecedented magnitude. Historical records, however, clearly indicate that Tacloban and nearby coastal communities were similarly devastated by another typhoon in 1897. The 1897 typhoon crossed the Philippines on a similar path of destruction, almost parallel to ST Haiyan but about 10 to 15 km farther north. Ty 1897 seemed less intense than ST Haiyan but generated a storm surge of comparable magnitude. Inundation heights in 1897 exceeded 4 m in most places with a maximum of 7 m. The Ty 1897 estimated death toll of 1228 corresponds to a similar fatality rate as Haiyan, given the massive population growth between the two events. This historical event demonstrates that ST Haiyan is not unprecedented and highlights the importance of ancestral knowledge, historical awareness and education for appropriate hazard mitigation, response and evacuation.

As for Vietnam, there’s the 1881 Haiphong typhoon:

…The typhoon killed about 3,000 people in Haiphong, Vietnam [more than 15% of its population]….Any typhoon like the 1881 Haiphong typhoon would be a rare occurrence because its path around Hainan is what made it so strong by the time it hit Haiphong. It would take another 143 years for a typhoon like this to happen again – Typhoon Yagi in 2024 made landfall near Haiphong and wreaked havoc on the city….

History repeating itself again?

Heatwaves

Next up in the report is heatwaves, at page 26 et seq. The Report claims that globally, 1.5 billion children are exposed to more frequent, longer or more severe heatwaves. For these purposes a heatwave is defined as any period of three days or more when the maximum temperature each day is in the top 10 per cent of the local 15-day average. On page 27, a rather revealing statement appears:

With 68 per cent of the world’s population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, rapid urbanization will amplify the risk through the Urban Heat Island [UHI] effect, a dynamic that disproportionately endangers children in low income families who often live in densely built areas with less vegetation and limited resources to cope.

Well, quite.

Extreme Heat

On page 29 the Report segues into a discussion of extreme heat (said to affect 1.2 billion children globally). Extreme heat is here defined as any day when the temperature exceeds 35C. I would accept that this is one area where the situation may be exacerbated by climate change (as well as by population growth and increasing UHI issues). Ironically, then, this is one area where the Report offers up the most caveats:

…it is essential to note the limitations and data gaps of attribution science …The precise attribution of every single extreme event can be challenging due to the inherent variability of natural climate systems and the complexity of disentangling human and natural influences.

Fires

Page 32 et seq deal with fires. The claim is that globally, 205 million children are exposed to more frequent or severe fires. There is the usual reference to climate change, not least in the form of higher temperatures, and we are told that human-induced climate change is leading to increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires. Human-induced climate change, or just human-induced? The Report does acknowledge that “human activities such as land-use changes and deforestation further exacerbate the risk of fires”. With the plethora of media reports just now regarding terrible wildfires in mainland Europe and in the UK, I may be thought to be pushing my luck in challenging the narrative here. But it depends who you believe and what timescales you consider. For instance, the World Resources Institute claims that “New data shows that forest fires are getting worse, burning more than twice as much tree cover today as they did 20 years ago, largely due to climate change.” Yet, according to Our World in Data “…globally, the amount of area burned by wildfires each year has gone down over the last few decades.” Their charts also suggest that CO2 emissions from wildfires are declining, which is a little tricky for Unicef, whose Report claims that wildfires “can also contribute to climate change by releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”

The Unicef Report also says “Wildfire smoke can be significantly more toxic and harmful than regular ambient air pollution, especially for children under the age of five.” True, no doubt, but the Report declines to mention that (at least according to Our World in Data) that air pollution from wildfires is also declining globally.

As always, history should not be overlooked. Are the World Resources Institute correct to focus on the last twenty years, because of a worrying trend that they and others have identified over that time (even if Our World in Data contradicts such claims)? Or are they simply cherry-picking? After all, there have been some terrifyingly massive wildfires in the past. The American wildfires of 1910 are possibly unmatched (in the USA) to this day :

During the summer of 1910 large wildfires occurred throughout the western United States, and especially in the northern Rocky Mountains. The “Great Idaho Fires” of 1910 alone burned about three million acres (~1.2 Mha)— an area that is approximately the size of Connecticut. Multiple fires ignited and coalesced, burning in forests of northern Idaho and western Montana including parts of the Bitterroot, Cabinet, Clearwater, Coeur d’Alene, Flathead, Kaniksu, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, Lolo, and St. Joe National Forests. The firestorm burned for days in late August of 1910 and killed 87 people, including 78 firefighters. It is believed to be the largest, although not the deadliest, wildfire complex in recorded U.S. history. Here we show that highly anomalous weather preceded the conflagration in much of the West, including the occurrence of the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States (except March 2012). While the occurrence of very high winds greatly contributed to the fast spread of the wildfire, the preceding highly anomalous warm and dry condition since the spring of 1910 likely also contributed to the magnitude of this event.

Globally, it’s possible that the New South Wales bush fires of 1974-5 remain the most devastating yet, with reportedly 117 million hectares (289 million acres) of land throughout Australia, amounting to about 15 percent of the land on the continent, being burned. Still in Australia, the 1939 Black Friday fires were brought on by years of drought in the area, coupled with rising temperatures and strong winds that helped the blazes spread. By the time the fires were over, 2 million hectares (5 million acres) had been destroyed, and 75 percent of Victoria had been affected in some way. Then there’s the 1919 Great Fire of Canada which burned nearly 2 million hectares (5 million acres) across northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Sand and Dust Storms

At page 34 et seq we are told that globally, 123 million children live in areas exposed to sand and dust storms. Curiously, perhaps, climate change is almost an afterthought in this section:

Sand and dust storms (SDS) originate from natural sources like deserts, dry lake beds and coastal regions with loose sediment. Human activities exacerbate the problem through construction, agriculture and poor land management practices that strip vegetation and expose soil to wind erosion….Other human activities, such as the reduction of vegetation cover or the extensive tilling of agricultural landscapes, also increase the risk. Over the past few decades, land degradation has contributed significantly to the increased number and size of SDS sources. Deforestation, agricultural expansion and more frequent and destructive climate hazards make countries more susceptible to SDS hazards.

“Destructive climate hazards” aren’t explained, but there is tagged on the obligatory “[h]uman-induced climate change amplifies the occurrence of SDS by altering weather patterns.” No link or footnote is offered to justify this claim.

Climate-sensitive hazards

These are dealt with at page 36 et seq, where it is claimed that one billion children are exposed to malaria. Sadly, this may be true, but it has nothing to do with climate change, as is apparent from this (“From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age”):

Present global temperatures are in a warming phase that began 200 to 300 years ago. Some climate models suggest that human activities may have exacerbated this phase by raising the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Discussions of the potential effects of the weather include predictions that malaria will emerge from the tropics and become established in Europe and North America. The complex ecology and transmission dynamics of the disease, as well as accounts of its early history, refute such predictions. Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperate regions, with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle. From 1564 to the 1730s-the coldest period of the Little Ice Age-malaria was an important cause of illness and death in several parts of England. Transmission began to decline only in the 19th century, when the present warming trend was well under way. The history of the disease in England underscores the role of factors other than temperature in malaria transmission.

I would not wish to downplay the risk of diseases becoming more widespread if they are spread by insects moving to warming parts of the planet, but the Unicef Report offers thin gruel with regard to such claims:

In this report, malaria is used as an example of a climate-sensitive vector-borne disease in the absence of globally available data for other diseases (such as dengue, chikungunya, zika, tick-borne encephalitis, West Nile fever, and diarrheal diseases). The total number of children exposed to a greater range of vector-borne diseases is likely to be significantly higher. [My emphasis].

It’s also worth noting that the report accepts that notable progress has been made in some countries with regard to malaria eradication, while countries with new problems, such as Guyana, are experiencing this problem “especially in hinterland regions with increased mining and logging activities”. Not climate change there, then, either.

Ambient air pollution

This is dealt with at page 39 et seq. The claim is that basically almost all children (2.3 billion of them) live in areas with unhealthy air. Then we experience a breathtaking piece of legerdemain, with the (non-existent) link to climate change being made thus:

Human-induced climate change and air pollution are linked in different ways. Many activities that produce greenhouse gases also emit air pollutants, which have devastating and wide-reaching impacts on children.

The report also seeks to link sandstorms and fires to air pollution and blames them on climate change, whereas, as we saw above, this isn’t the case.

Multiple Hazards

Having listed a number of hazards to children that are tenuously said to be caused by, or linked to, climate change, the report then doubles down with a section, commencing on page 41, in connection with multiple, overlapping hazards. This claims, without evidence, that:

The rapidly intensifying climate crisis rarely manifests through a singular event. Instead, communities, and particularly children, are facing a complex and dangerous reality: the simultaneous or sequential impact of multiple climate-related hazards.

I do not argue that the examples given in the Report are not real – e.g. that flooding can lead to vector-borne diseases, food shortages etc. I do dispute that the Report justifies the claim that there is a “rapidly intensifying climate crisis” or that climate change is creating multiple hazards that are greater than in the past (save to the extent that the numbers of children are much greater than in the past, having almost tripled globally since 1950, for instance).

Children’s vulnerability in relation to social systems and services

This section of the Report (from page 48 onwards) claims, in essence that the “climate crisis” [sic] is a reality; that no child-critical service is unaffected by its impacts; that climate-related hazards expose deeply rooted vulnerabilities in communities and socio-economic systems and services, which can result in disasters that endanger children’s lives and rights; that governments can strengthen access to, and the resilience of, the social services children most rely on; and the report goes on to discuss children’s vulnerability to climate-related hazards by examining the status of child-critical social systems and services as a proxy indicator of adaptive capacity.

The problem I have this with section of the Report is that it takes the “climate crisis” as a given, says that it’s worse in poor countries, then links the inability of governments in poor countries to provide “child-critical social systems and services” with the climate crisis, and thereby achieves its aim by entirely circular reasoning. The reality is that children who live in poor countries suffer due to the poverty of their families and their governments. Climate-related issues may not be readily resolved due to that poverty, but none of this is necessarily the result of the putative “climate crisis” or of climate change. How can it be? For instance, to give one simple, crude, but nevertheless telling, example, the population of Ethiopia in 1985 (the third year of the terrible famine, and of Live Aid) was less than 40 million, and today it is almost 140 million. In just over 40 years its population has – astonishingly – increased by 100 million people. Thankfully, Ethiopia has not experienced famine on the scale of that of 1985 since then, despite the massive increase in population. That is not to say that there have not been severe issues in that time, that have been well dealt with by international organisations reacting swiftly to early warning signs. Some have been induced by conflict (the 1999-2000 war between Eritrea and Ethiopia; the 2020-2022 Tigray conflict) and others have indeed been caused by severe droughts (2002-2003; 2015-2016), but we have certainly not witnessed a situation being made worse by a “climate crisis”. I have already made a similar point above with regard to Bangladesh, and the same could be said of many other locations around the world.

Policy Recommendations

One of the issues I have with Unicef is that, as a United Nations charity (its very name is an acronym – United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) it is completely bound up in the worldview of the United Nations. Hence the policy recommendations section of the Report (page 78 et seq) commences by referencing the adoption by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child of General Comment No. 26, its first authoritative guidance on children’s rights and the environment, with a special focus on climate change; next it references the Paris Agreement on Climate Change; then the 2025 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change issued by the International Court of Justice. Thus does the Report of one UN body lock in the work of other UN bodies which share its obsession with climate change.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, then to find that of the Report’s three over-arching recommendations, the first recommendation is:

Reduce emissions across all sectors and take ambitious action to fulfil existing international commitments, grounded in the best available science. This includes the urgent phasing-out of fossil fuels and a just transition towards renewable energy and energy efficiency in line with 1.5°C pathways – ensuring the best interests of the child are a primary consideration.

Regrettably, this seems to matter more to Unicef than its second recommendation (perhaps I’m being unfair in suggesting that the order in which they appear in the Report represents Unicef’s priorities, but I don’t think so):

Protect children through inclusive climate adaptation and responses to loss and damage that prioritize the resilience of social services children rely on to survive and thrive. Ensure children and child-critical services are prioritized in national adaptation plans and sectoral strategies, disaster preparedness and response plans, and strategies to respond to loss and damage.

Given that General Comment No. 26 states that, as environmental decisions generally concern children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the adoption and implementation of environmental decisions, including laws, regulations, policies, standards, guidelines, plans, strategies, budgets, international agreements and the provision of development assistance, one might have hoped that the order of the recommendations would have been reversed.

The final recommendation might have featured in an end-of-COP press release:

Empower children and young people to meaningfully participate in climate action and a just transition by investing in climate education, knowledge and skills, and by strengthening the capacity of decision makers and experts to respect children’s right to be heard, freedom of expression, and participation in decisions that affect their lives. Ensure children’s needs and perspectives are reflected in local, national, regional and global decision making on climate policy and climate finance.

Conclusion

Unicef does a great deal of valuable work. For that we should all be grateful. But I believe it would do a better job still if it were to stick to the objectives set down for it by the UN in 1946 as part of its founding Charter as updated in 1953. Much the same could be said for the United Nations more generally. It’s such a pity that an organisation (the UN) that was set up with the best of intentions following the Second World War, has spawned numerous offshoots that no longer prioritise the purposes for which they were established, but which all now prioritise proselytising about climate change. Expect more of this sort of thing as COP31 approaches.