Form Vulnerable 2010-2021: Fill & Download for Free

Jacob Rees-Mogg’s response in Parliament today says it all:“I think it’s a real scandal that Unicef should be playing politics in this way, when it is meant to be looking after people in the poorest, the most deprived countries in the world - where people are starving, where there are famines, and where there are civil wars. They make cheap, political points of this kind - giving, I think, £25,000 to one council - it is a political stunt of the lowest order.“What has this government done about child poverty? We’re committed to our manifesto pledge to reduce child poverty. We’ve expanded free school meals to all five to seven year-olds, benefitting 1.4 million children. We doubled free childcare for eligible working parents. We will establish a one billion childcare fund giving parents the support and freedom to look after children. We’re spending £400,000,000 of taxpayers’ money to support children, families, and the most vulnerable over winter and through 2021. Since 2010 to 2018–19, there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty in this country - this is a record of success of Conservatism, and Unicef should be ashamed of itself.”Jacob Rees-Mogg accuses Unicef of 'playing politics' over UK food campaign

As I feel can be said all too often of late, what you’ve heard is not what’s happening, and what is happening is something else entirely.To give a sense of the going narrative, we have this tweet from the President of France:Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest - the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen - is on fire. It is an international crisis. Members of the G7 Summit, let's discuss this emergency first order in two days! #ActForTheAmazon pic.twitter.com/dogOJj9big— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) August 22, 2019So, about this:That’s the opposite of what literally means.That picture is a stock photo that’s at least 16 years old.The Amazon basin is on fire every year — to the tune of no fewer than tens of thousands of fires each season.Most of these fires are set by ranchers to clear out brush and initiate new grass growth. That is, they’re not the product of climate change (though they are making climate change worse).Per NASA, the number of current fires is actually slightly under average for the past fifteen years. There are no meaningful records being set.While important to carbon capture, the Amazon rainforest doesn’t produce 20% of the world’s oxygen, nor anywhere close. (This claim is so misleading that I’m going to give it its own section.)Now, this isn’t to say that nothing alarming is happening right now. Quite the opposite! But, as often tends to be the case, the real problems here are much messier than the headlines would suggest.But before we get into all that, let’s turn back to that curious “world’s lungs” bit for a minute.Memes vs. Science[2021 EDIT: I’ve written an updated version of this story here. While I’m keeping this one mostly intact for reference, I’m shifting my corrections policy to the new writeup.]While the whole “[the Amazon] produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen” claim is oft-repeated (some say 28%), it’s hard to find an original source. That said, it doesn’t really matter, as the claim is meaningless anyway. While it’s true that individual trees are pretty good at oxygen turnover, there’s a more basic fact in play here:Mature forests are (mostly) oxygen and carbon-dioxide neutral.Simplifying a bit, trees are just banks that take carbon deposits and give oxygen loans. For as long as the bank is open (i.e., for as long as the tree is alive), it takes additional deposits and issues new loans. But trees don’t live forever, and mature forests are generally net-zero as to trees living and dying. Birth and growth are balanced by death and decline, and so the cycle goes.Relevant to our point here, when a tree meets its end its carbon deposits are released via a combination of decay and combustion. Just so, the surplus oxygen it’d loaned out is offset by the consumption of termites and all the other little things that feast upon its remains. (It gets a lot more complicated, but this cartoonish version works for our purposes. EDIT: See additional note at the end.)So, at a very basic level:Carbon/CO2 that’s locked into a bank is carbon that’s not floating about in the atmosphereCarbon in the atmosphere contributes to global warming, which is bad for a lot of ultra-sensitive life-supporting balancesPlanting new trees increases the amount of carbon locked into banks, which is goodReducing existing forests is equivalent to those banks opening their vaults, which is badYou’ll note that none of this has much do to with oxygen. It isn’t that oxygen isn’t important. It’s just that we have loads of it, and a slight dip in the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere isn’t a biggie. We’re in no immediate danger of running low, and mature forests aren’t helping all that much on that front anyway. While we obviously don’t want to lose the trees we do have, the current fires in the Amazon are essentially meaningless vis-à-vis our oxygen supply.Now, what does matter is the carbon being released — which is something worth looking at in more detail.Fire AccountancyOne reason this story has blown up is that INPE’s (Brazil’s NASA) fire counts make this year look like a noticeable outlier, especially if you only compare 2019 YTD to the equivalent period in 2013 or 2018.Looking at the most popular chart making the rounds (taken from this BBC article):If you’re wondering why the cutoff is 2013, that’s as long as INPE has been collecting this data. They’re pretty new at this.[EDIT: I was wrong here. INPE’s data goes back to 1998, and can be found here. The site is in Portuguese, but the data is pretty self-explanatory. It shows unique fires per month and per year, with high/low/mean numbers at the bottom.]Without meaning to cast shade at their efforts, it’s worth noting that INPE’s data contrasts quite a bit with NASA’s. While this is tricky to adjudicate, my subjective bias is that NASA’s records are more useful, in that they have best-in-class everything and more political independence.If we look at GFED’s numbers (based on NASA’s data), the picture going into August looks very different:And even the most current numbers (updated August 22nd) suggest that we’re still behind 2016’s pace:And here’s the rub: 2016 ended up with only 257k fires vs. 301k for 2017. The moral? We’re just getting into the fire season, and data through August just isn’t all that predictive as to where the year will end up. (I mean, why would it be?)Oh, and 2016 had only about half as many fires as 2010 (which saw over 500k!). We’ve seen a lot more fires in very recent memory. What’s happening now, while bad, isn’t exactly remarkable, either in terms of overall activity or expected emissions:(While that 2019 number may very well rise from the current estimate, we have no idea by how much, as we’re far too early into the season to know.)Anyway, if the number of current fires isn’t the issue, then what is?[EDIT: Since I’m in here editing, may as well give the most recent data. GFED says YTD fires as of August 24th are still behind 2016, though August itself has been worse (44,705 vs. 65,792). INPE says August has had 42,061 as of the 25th, and put August 2016 at 39,088. This trajectory isn’t great, but also doesn’t tell us much given the low correlation between August totals and the rest of the season.]Under New ManagementBrazil got a new President this year, Jair Bolsonaro. While he’s not exactly the Brazilian version of Trump, their policies and general outlook do look pretty similar. Like Trump, Bolsonaro was elected on a “drain the swamp” sort of platform, where his main selling point was his claim that he’d reform the notorious corruption of his predecessors. Also like Trump, he’s not especially a fan of ceding his country’s economic interests to outside forces (nor to any domestic bureaucracy).While there’s debate to be had as to whether a regulatory rollback of the policies protecting the rainforest will actually help Brazil economically on a longer timeline (climate effects aside), what’s more certain is that said rollback is going to have the immediate effect of making ranchers happier and more profitable.As context, some data from the folks at Yale:Cattle ranching is the largest driver of deforestation in every Amazon country, accounting for 80% of current deforestation rates. Amazon Brazil is home to approximately 200 million head of cattle, and is the largest exporter in the world, supplying about one quarter of the global market.So, what’s been happening for a long time is that Brazilian ranchers clear out a bunch of trees to make room for pasture (using mostly-controlled fires as part of the conversion process), then use this land in a wildly inefficient way to raise cattle (some third of which they export, mostly to Asia).What seems to be happening now is that Bolsonaro is giving ranchers implicit (if not also explicit) encouragement to take this practice up a notch, as it’s an easy way of goosing cheap revenue. (Some also argue that he’s trying to displace indigenous folks and generally weaken international control over the rainforest so as to allow new highway and infrastructure projects — but these are harder elements for me to verify or quantify.)Now, so far as this goes, this is indeed bad news. While we don’t need the rainforest for oxygen in any immediate sense, we do need all that carbon to stay in those trees. There are also all kinds of other nasty consequences to Amazonian deforestation. It’s something we really want to avoid. And it would be particularly tragic if we couldn’t, in that this failure would be the clear reversal of a trend.(Source: Deforestation in the Amazon.)The big questions:How much deforestation will Bolsonaro’s policies actually lead to?Is there anything that can be done to reduce said number?In the first case, I’m skeptical that we have enough public data to know at this point. Like, his intent is clear enough. It’s entirely possible that September is going to see a 2010-esque number of fires, and it’s entirely possible that unusually dry weather will lead to many of those fires spreading. But it’s also possible that those numbers will rise rather modestly, and we won’t know until we know. (While we should be appropriately vigilant in tracking developments, the big thing to be avoided here is attacking Bolsonaro with a narrative that will let him turn to his base and say “fake news”, which is more or less what’s happening right now.)In the second case, I think we have to take a hard look at the sorts of things the international community can do, particularly in terms of what’s likely to be productive vs. what’s likely to have the opposite effect.Means of AddressLet’s go back to that Macron tweet again.So when France's @EmmanuelMacron tweeted that the #G7 should discuss the emergency in the burning Amazon ("'our' house") https://t.co/Pi32uL9idO did he do so fully aware of how that'd be wonderful fuel for @jairbolsonaro's nationalism? https://t.co/NsfPMlc5Xe pic.twitter.com/fjPMW18nJi— Andrew Revkin (@Revkin) August 23, 2019For those having a hard time making out the text on mobile, the heart of Bolsonaro’s retort was:The French President’s suggestion that Amazonian issues be discussed at the G7 without the participation of the countries of the region evokes a misplaced colonialist mindset in the 21st century.Two things here:This message is going to sell at homeHe’s not entirely wrongThere’s a complicated tension between national sovereignty and global interdependence. While the rest of the world clearly has a lot to lose with continued Amazonian deforestation, it isn’t likely that taking a “we will impose our will on you and your real estate” approach is going to help.Just consider our standing when it comes to telling other countries who to elect, how to use their natural resources, and how to treat their indigenous populations. On which grounds are we expecting them to be persuaded? Especially when we’re the ones importing cheap palm oil and beef jerky and thereby profiting from the very behaviour we’re condemning!This is a defining problem of the coming era. Developing nations are turning to the playbook we used to reach our own heights, and us telling them “but you can’t do that now” is not going to be especially compelling. We need a better class of argument, and a lot less hypocrisy.Parting ThoughtsA few things stood out as I was researching this story:Brazilian cattle exports are only worth about $7bn USD or so (if you include domestic consumption, it’s closer to $25bn)Most Brazilian cattle ranchers are brutally inefficient in how they use their land. But they need investment dollars to scale the best improvementsWhile lots of US food companies are getting pretty good at this whole meat alternatives thing, the industry could use a lot of R&D capital.Taken together, you kinda wonder if the answer isn’t just using a carbon tax to fund all this stuff. Give Brazilian ranchers grants to make their cattle-raising more efficient, then offer additional incentives if they manage production without cutting trees or starting uncontrolled fires. And at the same time figure out how to shift more global eaters to lab-grown or plant-based alternatives that don’t suck.As ever, creative incentives move the world more than moralizing ever has or can.EDIT: As a point of clarity, while all forests tend towards neutrality over long enough timelines, there is evidence that many older forests are still banking more carbon than they release. Some can build incredible density, and are protected from net-zero die off by cooler weather and plenty of rain. But that’s effectively just a buildup for a future carbon release. It may take decades (or even centuries), but at some point a dry season will come and most of that carbon will get released. The particularly concerning thing is that our current warming is making our existing forests more vulnerable. We’re seeing this in Canada now (where our forests are actually carbon positive at present), and the big concern in the Amazon is that continued deforestation may push that ecosystem over a tipping point, where hotter and drier seasons will continue to thin out what’s left, creating a death cycle turning the rainforest into savanna.All said, the global alarm about the fate of the Amazon is reasonable. We’re just not directing our worry in a productive direction. If we want to save the Amazon, we have to give positive incentives to a whole lot of farmers and voters while not pushing them further towards Bolsonaro.

My initial opinion is that there is nothing surprising. The redistribution of honorary military titles and royal patronages was, as we know, held off when Harry and Meghan made the decision to cease being ‘working royals’ and engage in their own activities in the same way as other members of the royal family such as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and thereby (i) reduce the public interest excuse for persistent tabloid intrusion, and (ii) allow them to pursue social change activities and interests that would otherwise be a conflict with the constitutional responsibilities of the sovereign if they remained official representatives.It is recognised that Harry had hoped he could achieve this by becoming a part-time working royal, i.e., not receiving any funds from the Queen but retaining some of the activities he was most interested in. Buckingham Palace were not in favour of a less clear-cut arrangement, given the constitutional difficulties it would create for a Queen and her ‘working royal’ representatives who must constitutionally be in agreement with her government.While it is not confirmed, it is understood that the military and charitable appointments Harry had taken on as a working royal were not re-distributed while the Sussexes took a year to confirm that their plans.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex at an event for the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust.Some public confusionBeyond this, my only other opinion is that there has been a fair bit of confusion over what ‘royal patronages’ means and why Harry is able to retain certain charitable interests (e.g., Invictus Games and Sentebale) but not others.This has come from the 19 February 2021 announcement from Buckingham Palace that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have confirmed they will not be returning to the roles of ‘working royals’ and that specific royal patronages (The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, The Rugby Football Union, The Rugby Football League, The Royal National Theatre, and the Association of Commonwealth Universities) will be redistributed by the Queen among working members of the royal family.It’s worth breaking down the difference to clarify the situation going forward for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.Being a patron of a charity in a private capacityLike most royal family members (whether working royals or not), Harry and Meghan are privately patrons of—or have connections of personal support with—charities. Among non-working royals, this is a private decision, and any costs to their activities with the charity are generally funded privately. The extent of support ranges from “lending one’s name” to donations to giving a speech at a charity dinner to actively serving on the charity’s board.For example, HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Mapelli Mozzi, is not a working royal. However, she is patron of several charities in a private capacity:The Forget Me Not Children's Hospice in West Yorkshire, since c. 2011The York Music Society, since 2012, alongside two other patrons (the Society is a choir of 150 members which puts on a handful of concerts each year and has a long history, having been formed in 1765).The Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre since 2013. Beatrice received support as a child and young adult from the centre and was later invited to extend her private support for dyslexia with this ambassadorial role.Trustee on the board of the Outward Bound Trust since March 2019 (for which her father was patron until retiring in November 2019, and before him her grandfather Prince Philip).Having non-working members as patrons of charities and organisations benefits them because they are high-profile individuals who attract public interest. This includes the interest of newspapers (in promoting a charity), or benefactors (who may attend a charitable dinner to hear Princess Beatrice) and those making donations (who become aware of the charity through the Princess’ involvement).When a non-working royal family member becomes a patron of charity, they do not need the Queen’s permission or any discussion with staff at Buckingham Palace (although we can reasonably assume that they notify Buckingham Palace as a courtesy). This is because being private citizens, there is no potential conflict of interest for the Queen in her capacity as sovereign in which she must remain in agreement with her government. (That is, there is no conflict of interest for the Queen any more than if your sister supported a white supremacist while you were active in an anti-racist foundation).Several working royals are also patrons of charities in a private capacity while also holding royal patronages in which they represent the Queen more formally. For example, HRH Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, is patron of various organisations in both a royal and private capacity:As a working royal, he represents his mother the Queen as patron of various organisations that have royal interest, such as the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, the Royal Exchange Theatre Company, the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society, etc.In a more private capacity, the Earl of Wessex supports several charities and non-profit arts organisations such as the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, the London Mozart Players, Haddo House Choral and Operatic Society, etc.In the case of a working royal, there is a greater chance of conflict of interest (e.g., privately supporting a charity that is in direct or adversarial competition with a royal society), so participation tends to be more strictly controlled and ‘worked out’ with Buckingham Palace support staff.Having a working royal as a patron in a private capacity gives significantly higher prestige, as working royal’s movements are recorded by the Court Circular and published online , meaning that even when they are attending a private charitable event or meeting, the charity will be mentioned in a public capacity.Royal patronagesIt is common for newspapers to print the term “royal patronages” whenever a member of the royal family (working or not) serves as a patron, trustee, board member or otherwise for a non-profit organisation, regardless of whether that is on behalf of the sovereign or in a private capacity. However, it is not always quite correct.The royal patronages that are in the control of the sovereign are those which have what historically is referred to as royal favour—i.e., the personal interest of the sovereign. In many cases, that is because the organisation or charity has operated under either:a royal charter, which is a formal grant issued by the monarch (used to establish cities, universities, and a number of learned societies, etc., and which is today a government rather than a royal document). For a charity or organisation to receive or be incorporated under a royal charter, it must demonstrate “pre-eminence, stability and permanence” and in being incorporated it comes under public regulation. For example, the British Film Institute operates under a royal charity and works as a cultural charity, supporting filmmakers, preserving film archives and promoting British film. Its patron is the Prince of Wales. Likewise the Royal National Institute of Blind People in the UK received a royal charter in 1948, and its patron is the Queen herself.a royal warrant, which confers the right of the use of the title ‘royal’ in an organisation’s name. In the United Kingdom, this is protected under law and the right is governed by royal prerogative (which means more often a government minister rather than the Queen). It can also include the right to use what is called a protected royal device—a crown or coat of arms in the symbols and promotional images of an organisation.the personal patronage of the sovereign. Unlike other family members, the patronage of the sovereign does not quite occur in a private capacity due to her unique constitutional position. For those charities, trusts, not-for-profit organisations, etc., that have or have previously had her patronage (such as the Royal National Theatre and the Commonwealth Youth Trust), they have a particular standing, even if they are not incorporated under a royal charter. When a family members takes on roles (such as President and Vice President of the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, as Harry and Megan did until February 2021, while the Queen remained patron) or becomes the organisation’s patron, they are doing so in their capacity as working royals, representing the Queen in a formal capacity.There are several thousand organisations that have royal patronage in this formal sense (some in the UK, some in Commonwealth countries and some transnational) and there are several hundred organisations that are incorporated under a royal charter.In almost all cases, participation in royal societies etc. by a working royal family member is considered part of their working duties on behalf of the Queen. While that may not necessarily make these organisations more important, it creates added complexity related to the Queen’s constitutional responsibilities and the requirement that she remain in agreement with her government—this requires some added ‘management’ of the politics of patronage, and is one of the activities undertaken by the sizeable team of staff (courtiers) working in Buckingham Palace.HM The Queen in 1984, granting a royal charter to The Industrial Society (formerly known as the Boys’ Welfare Association at its founding in 1918, and more recently becoming the Work Foundation in 2002.The use of the royal device (crown) on the Royal Society of Literature logo. The Duchess of Cornwall is patron.The charter of Charles II that established the Royal Society 1660, the oldest national scientific institute in the world. Since 1660, every monarch has served at the patron of The Royal Society.What of Harry and Meghan’s royal and private patronages?Leaving Harry’s honorary military roles aside, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’ decision to discontinue serving formally as ‘working royals’ (paid a stipend in exchange for full-time roles representing the sovereign in her official capacities) has meant having to give up roles as patrons of organisations operating under royal charter or otherwise part of the group that have specific royal patronage. This has meant the following:The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust. The Trust was founded in 2018 to promote the participation of young people in positive social change. Among their formal ‘working royal’ duties, Harry was appointed to serve the organisation as President, and Meghan as its vice president. As active roles in the organisation, holding these positions was not tenable from overseas.The Duchess of Sussex with former Australian Prime Minister at an International Women’s Day event hosted by the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust in 2019.The Royal National Theatre (usually known just as ‘the National Theatre’). The Queen was patron from 1974 until 2018, when this trust organisation became one of several that the Queen passed on to other family members to reduce her commitments after turning ninety. Meghan was patron of the National Theatre until February 2021.Meghan at the Royal National Theatre soon after taking over as patron from HM the QueenThe Rugby Football Union. Harry became vice patron of the RFU in 2010 and patron in 2016.The Rugby Football League. Harry became patron in 2017 and relinquished the role in February 2021.The Duke of Sussex at the 2015 Rugby World Cup final at Twickenham StadiumThe Association of Commonwealth Universities was founded in 1913 and promotes and supports higher education and research through networking. The Queen was its patron from 1986 to 2019 when it was the Duchess of Sussex took over as part of the group of patronages taken over by other family members to reduce the load on the Queen.Meghan at a meeting of the Association of Commonwealth Universities in December 2018A number of bloggers and people writing online have asked what Harry and Meghan’s non-working status means for their other patronages. There have been some which have been relinquished over the past year such as the London Marathon Charitable Trust, which is not a royal patronage and rotates its patron on a three-yearly basis.Others, which we are aware Harry will retain his role as patron are also not royal organisations. They include:- Invictus Games, which was founded by Harry and who have released a statement confirming that it is not a royal role and that Harry will remain its patron (“we are proud to have The Duke of Sussex as our Patron. The Invictus Games was founded by him, it has been built on his ideas and he remains fully committed to both the Games and to the Invictus Games Foundation.”)Sentebale, which was founded by Prince Harry in 2006 as a charity to help vulnerable children in Botswana and elsewhere’African Parks, which is a South African conservation organisation founded in 2000 and which manages national parks throughout South Africa and other African countries. Harry serves as its President since 2017.Dolen Cymru, which is a charity founded during the 1980s Ethiopian famine to promote links and support with Lesotho, Africa.Henry van Straubenzee Memorial Fund, which was established in honour of William and Harry’s schoolfriend Henry to help combat poverty in Uganda. Prince William and Prince Harry have been joint patrons since 2009.WellChild, which is a charity that supports seriously ill children in the United Kingdom. It was established in 1977 focused on children’s kidney disease, becoming the Children Nationwide Medical Research Foundation and then WellChild in 2003. Harry continues as its patron.Rhino Conservation Botswana is a charity that helps fund activities to increase and protect populations of black and white rhinoceroses in Botswana. Prince Harry became patron in December 2016.Prince Harry assisting in the translocation of a Rhinoceros in Malawi as part of his activities with African Parks.What does the change mean to Harry and Meghan’s role as royal family membersNo substantial change since early 2020 when Harry and Meghan made the decision to cease being working royals.Their role remains just like all other members of the royal family who are not on the payroll to represent the Queen in her official duties as sovereign, i.e., Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Andrew, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, and all the many family members and cousins who are not styled an HRH.Most of the above have a connection with, support or are patrons of charities, but only working royals serve as patrons or perform other duties for the charities with royal charters, warrants or the Queen’s personal patronage as constitutional sovereign.Harry and Meghan have pledged to continue a life of public service, with a statement released the Buckingham Palace announcement: “As evidenced by their work over the past year, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain committed to their duty and service to the UK and around the world, and have offered their continued support to the organisations they have represented regardless of official role. We can all live a life of service. Service is universal."