Fight poverty or climate change?

[the reporter]

That is the choice we have according to this report

Britain's most senior independent scientist has warned that global warming threatens to ruin the international initiative to lift Africa out of poverty. Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society, said the cost of dealing with the adverse effects of climate change could soak up all the aid to African countries.

In an open letter to G8 environment ministers who are to meet in London on 1 November, Lord May warns that the Gleneagles agreement on aid and debt relief to Africa could amount to nothing. "As long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, there is the very real prospect that the increase in aid agreed at Gleneagles will be entirely consumed by the mounting cost of dealing with the added burden of adverse effects of climate change in Africa," Lord May said.

"In effect, the Gleneagles communiqué gave hope to Africa with one hand, through a promise of more aid but took that hope away with the other hand through its failure to address adequately the threat of climate change," he said. At the Gleneagles summit in July, G8 leaders agreed on a package of measures to help to lift Africa out of poverty but kept that separate from an action plan on climate change.

"But the action plan on climate change fell far short of a strategy to stop the rise in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere," he added. At the Gleneagles summit, President George Bush, an arch-sceptic of global warming, did not want climate change to be connected with aid to Africa and managed to separate it from the joint communiqué.

However, Lord May, a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, warned that there is mounting scientific evidence to show that global warming is the biggest single threat to the world today - especially developing countries. The latest study, published today ,reveals for instance that the rise in man-made greenhouse gases may already be responsible for an increase in drought conditions and risk of famine in eastern Africa.

Lord May cites the results of research by James Verdin of the US Geological Survey who found that rainfall has decreased steadily since 1996 in Ethiopia and neighbouring countries which coincides with a corresponding increase in surface-water temperatures in the southern Indian Ocean.

"The researchers point out that this reduction in rainfall is adversely affecting the growth of crops and increasing the number of people who require food aid," Lord May said. "This finding has particular resonance, coming as it does 20 years after a severe famine in Ethiopia attracted worldwide attention through Live Aid and other events that pricked the collective conscience of richer developed countries," he added.

"In short, the scientific evidence now presents a more compelling case than ever before for tackling the threat from climate change by stopping the rise of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere." Richer countries have a responsibility to do something about climate change by stabilising the rise in greenhouse gas emissions that they are primarily responsible for, he said.

"Therefore, if the increase in aid and other measures outlined in the Gleneagles action plan on Africa are to create the maximum benefit, they must be accompanied by effective action on climate change by stopping the inexorable rise in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere," Lord May said.

A major failing in the communiqué was that it did not acknowledge the importance of securing an agreement on stabilising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Lord May warns G8 environment ministers that without a definition of target concentrations of greenhouse gases, discussions about national emissions targets are nothing more than an academic dispute.

Do you agree with him?

[hoon]

I think you can probably do both providing you go about it in the right way.

[Richard]

It's a tough one isn't it? It would be all too easy to make the wrong choice i.e.

1) Help fight poverty but then climate change turns out to be worse than expected so all the help you gave becomes irrelevant as the poor countries bear the brunt of it and lots of their people die anyway.

2) Fight climate change instead but then it turns out that it was never going to be much of a threat anyway and so all that money you spent on it could have been made better use of by fighting poverty.

It depends on how bad climate change turns out to be, which is not something we know........yet.

[mgopilot]

If fighting means killing, then kill all the people in poverty. I suppose that would work, and cut down the demand to produce CO2--thus killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. <<<notice the tongue in cheek humor<<

[MassDebation.com]

Originally Posted by mgopilot

If fighting means killing, then kill all the people in poverty. I suppose that would work, and cut down the demand to produce CO2--thus killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Perhaps they should arm you with a club and let you do the dirty work all on your own - drop you at your starting location of choice & you can start flailing wildly at them.

This would be an interesting excercise in "Survival of the Fittest" as you get thumped in about 5 seconds flat!

[Richard]

Mgopilot,

I'd be interested to know which groups of people would be on your "hit-list". Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews, although I doubt these people would be on your list since they are mostly an intelligent and resourceful bunch of people. I'd say your list would look more like:

1) Anybody native to Africa.
2) Anybody with an IQ of less than 100.
3) Anybody with more than 2 kids.

Have I missed anyone?

[MarkuisMellvile]

Oh, Goody!

Another thread where mgo betrays prejudice and gets shot down in flames by those with more rational views of the world!

MM

[reality]

Are you having a bad day MM?

[MarkuisMellvile]

Originally Posted by reality

Are you having a bad day MM?

No, today is fine. Thanks for asking. I just enjoy pointing out a bigot when I see it!

[mgopilot]

Originally Posted by TheRobster

Mgopilot,

I'd be interested to know which groups of people would be on your "hit-list". Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews, although I doubt these people would be on your list since they are mostly an intelligent and resourceful bunch of people. I'd say your list would look more like:

1) Anybody native to Africa.
2) Anybody with an IQ of less than 100.
3) Anybody with more than 2 kids.

Have I missed anyone?

>>>I'm called names because I suggested that humans should have mimicked God's Laws of Evolution to keep the species stronger and smarter, and sustainable. I also said we passed(in 1995) the point of where implementing a moderately enforced worldwide one-child-per-family rule would prevent the die-off (assuming a 10 year implementation time, and knowing it would never happen). I suppose for #1 you could substitute moslems. Ah, what a better world it would have been------but that is not the reality, instead, horror lies ahead with cascading ecofailures, wars, abject depression, diseases, malnutrition and cannibalism. It is 2AM and the party is almost over.........