1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Report: World can end poverty by 2025

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by techogurl, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. techogurl

    techogurl New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    226
    1
    0
    Location:
    Fayetteville, AR
    The Associated Press
    Updated: 11:05 p.m. ET Jan. 17, 2005


    UNITED NATIONS - Global poverty can be cut in half by 2015 and eliminated by 2025 if the world’s richest countries including the United States, Japan and Germany more than double aid to the poorest countries, hundreds of development experts concluded in a report Monday.

    At stake is life or death for tens of millions of impoverished people, it said.

    The report spells out the investments needed to meet the U.N. goals adopted by world leaders at the Millennium Summit in 2000 to tackle poverty, hunger and disease and promote education and development, mainly in African and Asian countries.

    “What we’re proposing is a strategy of investment to help empower the lives of very poor people that lack the tools and sometimes even the basic means to stay alive, much less be productive members of a fast-paced world economy,†said Professor Jeffrey Sachs, head of the U.N. anti-poverty effort and lead author of the report.

    The investments range from schools, clinics, safe water and sanitation to fertilizer, roads, electricity and transport to get goods to market.

    ‘Tremendous imbalance’
    “The system is not working right now — let’s be clear,†he said. “There’s a tremendous imbalance of focus on the issues of war and peace, and less on the dying and suffering of the poor who have no voice.â€

    According to the report, 1 billion people live on a dollar a day or less, many of them going to bed hungry every night; life expectancy in the poorest countries is half that of people in high-income countries. And every month, for example, 150,000 African children die of malaria because they don’t have bed nets to keep out mosquitoes, a tragedy Sachs called the “silent tsunami.â€

    In 1970, the world’s nations agreed to provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income for development assistance, and that figure was reaffirmed by the U.N. conference on financing development in Monterey, Mexico, in 2002.

    So far, only five countries have met or surpassed the target: Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Six others have made commitments to reach the target by 2015: Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, Spain and Britain.

    Nations including U.S. far from target
    But 11 of the 22 richest donors according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development are far from the target and have not set timetables to reach it — including the United States, Japan and Germany.

    If all 22 rich countries come up with the money, more than 500 million people can escape poverty and tens of millions can avoid certain death in the next decade, the report said.

    If the countries kept up the 0.7 percent level of aid-giving for another decade, it said, “by 2025 extreme poverty can be substantially eliminated†for the remaining 500 million people surviving on a dollar a day.

    “Our generation for the first time in human history really could see to it that extreme poverty on the planet is ended, not just by half but ended by the year 2025,†Sachs said.

    “We are not asking for one new promise from any country in the world, only the follow-through on what has already been committed,†he stressed.

    But trying to get the United States and the other rich nations to double or triple the amount of development assistance they give is expected to be an uphill struggle — and the target of a major lobbying effort.

    Far less than world’s military spending
    The resources to meet the U.N. goals are definitely within the means of the world’s 22 richest nations, Sachs said.

    “The required doubling of annual official development assistance to $135 billion in 2006, rising to $195 billion by 2015, pales beside the wealth of high income countries — and the world’s military budget of $900 billion a year,†the report said.

    The United States now spends only about 0.15 percent of its GDP on development aid, well below the 0.7 percent figure, Sachs said.

    President Bush’s administration has pledged $22.3 billion in aid for 2006, or 0.18 percent of gross national income. If it were to meet the report’s target for 2006, Washington would have to contribute more than double — $54.5 billion.


    Unless rich countries come up with the money, the report warned that the “already dwindling faith in international commitments to reduce poverty will likely vanish.â€

    Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, who led the project’s task force on trade, said “it is in the self-interest of rich countries to support poor countries’ development†for their own security and for economic growth because new markets will open up.

    Sachs presented Annan with the report, a 13-volume work totaling 3,000 pages. Annan called it an important contribution to the debate on meeting the U.N. goals, which he said “are eminently achievable.†Annan said he will use the report to help prepare his own recommendations in March for world leaders who will attend a follow-up summit in September that will also tackle U.N. reform.

    © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6837045/
     
  2. popsrcr

    popsrcr New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    232
    0
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Personally, I'd rather see us end poverty here first.
     
  3. TonyPSchaefer

    TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    14,816
    2,496
    66
    Location:
    Far-North Chicagoland
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Advanced
    [img=right:0c32bd02f3]http://geosun1.sjsu.edu/~dreed/images/exer7/conveyor2.GIF[/IMG]There was an article in Scientific American, November ’04 I think, about climate changes. They not only discussed what causes them, but also what they will cause. One of the bad things is the shutting down or deceleration of what they call the North Atlantic Conveyer Belt; a water pattern flowing from practically the South Pole to the North Pole exchanging cold water for warm water. I apologize that I do not have the article right in front of me for complete accuracy, but when the NACB is shut down, entire climates change. One of them is that normally temperate climes will cool down. Not freeze, but get colder. The colder temperatures will result in lower plant growth. Lower plant growth will result in less water vapor retained in the ground by roots and evaporated to the air (photosynthesis). Less water vapor and humidity results in less rainfall, which results in fewer plants, and the cycle continues.

    If this scenario plays out, the countries with grain foods will hoard them and the ones without will no longer receive them. Global badness ensues.
     
  4. techogurl

    techogurl New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    226
    1
    0
    Location:
    Fayetteville, AR
    I think that the existance of this article means that if certain governments cared... major problems could be solved. I find it hopeful.

    On another aside...is anyone else concerned with the potential of the US economy losing steam enough that the US would be on the recieveing end vs the giving end? The dollar is dropping so rapidly. Hmm....and major debt growth.
     
  5. jayman

    jayman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    13,439
    639
    0
    Location:
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    If this is the same UN that horribly mismanaged the Oil For Food program for Iraq, kickbacks and all, I'm not sure if I'd want taxpayer dollars flowing into a program with the lofty goal of ending world hunger.
     
  6. krooster1234

    krooster1234 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    72
    0
    0
    Location:
    Glenview, IL
    Yeah that does freak me out. We owe so much money to other countries, and keep borrowing more, without any signs of stopping. At some point, these other countries are going to wake up and realize we're not a good investment.

    Of course, if we continue these escapades in the middle east, and eventually control a large portion of the world's oil supply, then we will be in a position to never be on the recieving end from China or anyone else, regardless of how much debt we accumulate. I'm thoroughly convinced that that is what our current foreign policy is designed to do, under the guise of "spread democracy". Maybe our debt won't matter once we control the global oil supply? Hehe I'm only partly serious, as I don't have any hard evidence to back up such claims, but it's interesting to think about.

    In regards to ending world poverty, the key phrase is "if certain governments cared". I mean, we wouldn't even sign the Kyoto treaty because it would hurt our economy. As far as making global decisions, governments look out for numero uno, with the almightly dollar (or yen or whatever) being the basis of decision making. If the little guy gets screwed, so be it.