By their very nature, emergency organisations are understandably relatively reluctant about including environmental constraints in their emergency response plans, putting lifesaving above all other considerations. It is true that slowing down rescue operations on the pretext of limiting CO² emissions, or using emergency equipment less reliable because it is made from recyclable materials, would be a prospect difficult to accept, both by the rescuers and by the people rescued.
The rhetoric of prioritising varying degrees of urgency is also prevalent among international aid and health organisations, which under no circumstances want to sacrifice the effectiveness of their response to acute humanitarian crises on the altar of global warming. This explains why initiatives aimed at structurally reducing the environmental impact of humanitarian action - the first of which were launched some 15 years ago[1] - have, for the most part, failed to have any significant effect due to a lack of political will to implement them.
[1] The first MSF EcoLog Guideline on logistics eco-qualitative good practices was edited in 2009.
The rhetoric of prioritising varying degrees of urgency is also prevalent among international aid and health organisations, which under no circumstances want to sacrifice the effectiveness of their response to acute humanitarian crises on the altar of global warming. This explains why initiatives aimed at structurally reducing the environmental impact of humanitarian action - the first of which were launched some 15 years ago[1] - have, for the most part, failed to have any significant effect due to a lack of political will to implement them.
[1] The first MSF EcoLog Guideline on logistics eco-qualitative good practices was edited in 2009.