[extropy-chat] Re: Sorting out Africa, and dealing with climate change

[Terry W. Colvin]

Dirk Bruere wrote:
> 
> Matus wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That's partially the case, but another major factor is the the West in
> >>general, and the US in particular, quite often has had a hand in
> >>
> >>
> >putting
> >
> >
> >>these genocidal maniacs where they are today, or at least supporting
> >>them. Saddam is a case in point, but the US is currently cosying up to
> >>
> >>
> >a
> >
> >
> >>whole load of warlords in Afghanistan, a guy who boils political
> >>prisoners alive (Uzbekistan IIRC) and of course our good pal the
> >>
> >>
> >nuclear
> >
> >
> >>armed Islamic military dictator Musharraf, to name but a few.
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yet we had nothing to do with putting Kim Jong Il in power, or Idi Amin,
> >or Mao Ze Dong.  Whether or not the US played a role in propping up
> >dictators, and whether it was just or not in that circumstance, is
> >irrelevant to the question of why the media just doesn't give a shit
> >about the millions of people dying in North Korea or the Sudan.  A large
> >
> >
> Primarily because it's not our problem.
> NK is a well armed state that nobody wants to prop up with aid.
> Sudan is just yet another instance of Africa imploding. It seems that
> all assistence to Africa does is prolong the misery.
> 
> Just about every nation is Africa is a 'fake' - a few lines on a map
> drawn by the former colonial powers. Trying to maintain those fictions
> has a lot to do with what's happening and why Africa doesn't work.
> 
> On top of that may be a cynical realisation that it's pointless to keep
> feeding people who are breeding beyond the limits of their ability to
> feed themselves.
> 
> A case in point is the reaction to the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. I
> suspect a great deal of the Western response is because we now see those
> people as being 'us'. They are no longer seen as decrepit hopeless Third
> Worlders looking for handouts, but hard working folks just like us who
> have had a tough break. Brit dead are now expected to exceed 400. They
> were there as tourists having a holiday, just like as if they'd gone to
> Spain or Portugal.
> 
> >number of those journalists don't like the US anyway, so would see it as
> >a good opportunity.  I ask again, has any western journalist ever been
> >tortured or kidnapped or murdered by North Korea?  Anyone know?
> >
> >
> >
> Why should they be? All journalists that I know of have been explicitly
> allowed in by the govt and under careful supervision.
> It would be more instructive to look at regimes that actually kill
> journalists (inc foreign ones).
> 
> --
> Dirk

Tony Blair 

A year of huge challenges

Dec 29th 2004 
>From The Economist print edition


Two particular tasks face the world's rich nations, argues Britain's prime
minister in this article: sorting out Africa, and dealing with climate change 

BRITAIN takes over the presidency of the G8 this week. As each member-country
holds this position in rotation, critics sometimes dismiss the presidency as
little more than a chance to show-case the host nation at the annual summit. I
believe they are wrong. I see it instead as an important opportunity to
influence the international agenda of some of the world's most prosperous and
powerful countries.

This doesn't mean, of course, that any country can successfully push the G8 in a
direction the other members do not want to go. But the presidency can give an
important impetus to tackling problems that the rest recognise need addressing.
This is certainly the outcome I want from Britain's presidency in 2005. I have
made it clear that our efforts will focus on progress on Africa and climate
change. 


Debt and development 

The environment 

Britain's Treasury has details of the International Finance Facility. The
Department for International Development manages Britain's aid to poor
countries. See also Downing Street, the New Partnership for Africa's
Development, the Kyoto Protocol, the World Bank, the United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa and the African Union. 
 
Why? Firstly because, along with the threat from international terrorism and the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, I believe they are the most serious
problems facing the world today. Second, because they are both problems beyond
the power of any single country, no matter how well-intentioned or powerful, to
tackle on its own. A solution requires co-ordinated international action and,
above all, leadership, which the G8 is uniquely placed to give. 

Africa is a continent of breathtaking beauty and diversity with an
extraordinary, energetic and resilient people. As I have seen from my own
visits, given a chance, no matter how small, to better themselves, they seize
it.

But Africa is also a place plagued with problems—debt, disease, conflict,
corruption and weak governance—so embedded and widespread that no continent, no
matter how prosperous, could tackle them on its own. And Africa is not
prosperous.

It's the world's poorest continent. Half the population of sub-Saharan Africa
lives in absolute poverty. And, uniquely, Africa is getting poorer. Average
income per head is lower now than it was 30 years ago.

It is also the continent worst hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Twenty million
Africans have already died from the disease, and it is going to get much worse.
In some countries, four out of ten people are infected. Life expectancy is
falling, and will soon be down to just 30 years. This catastrophe has
single-handedly wiped out half a century of development gains.

In Sudan, and elsewhere, we have seen the tragic effects of war. At least 2m
people have died in Sudan's north-south conflict over the past 21 years, and
millions more have been affected. A comprehensive peace agreement could turn
Sudan around; but Darfur remains a catastrophe, and we cannot turn our attention
away from it. In Zimbabwe we see the great damage that can be done to a country,
its economy, its people and their potential by the destruction of democracy and
the failure of governance. We have worked with the international community to
identify benchmarks to help Zimbabwe restore the rights and prosperity of its
people.


Why we should care

Should this matter to the rest of the world? For democratic governments, it
should, because it matters to our citizens. They give millions of dollars to
help Africa and its people. They campaign for their governments to do more. They
passionately believe, as I do, that it can't be morally right, in a world
growing more prosperous and healthier by the year, that one in six African
children still die before their fifth birthday. The worldwide campaign to make
poverty history rightly challenges us to act. 

But the state of Africa is also a case, unusual in politics, where heart and
head are pushing us in the same direction. We must now all accept the utter
futility of trying to shut our borders to problems abroad. Famine in Africa will
affect our countries because it will be a trigger for mass migration. Conflict,
too, drives millions to flee their homes. Both create the conditions for
terrorism and fanaticism to take root and spread directly to Europe, to North
America and to Asia. We spend billions on humanitarian aid to help pick up the
pieces. A prosperous Africa, where its people have the chance to fulfil their
talents, is in all our interests. 

The sheer scale of Africa's problems can induce an understandable sense of
hopelessness that progress can be made. It helps explain the shocking fact that
aid to Africa, notwithstanding Britain's increased contribution, has fallen
since 1995. But there are reasons for optimism. We have seen the emergence of a
new generation of democratically elected African leaders, determined that their
governments will work cleanly and effectively to improve life for their
citizens. Their New Partnership for Africa's Development sets out a challenging
agenda. 

According to the World Bank, governance has been improving faster in Africa than
in many other areas of the developing world. Conflict in Africa, although still
devastating where it occurs, is also decreasing. Mozambique, a country brought
to its knees by vicious fighting, has cut its levels of poverty by almost a
third since peace. The civil war in Sierra Leone, thanks to the intervention of
British forces, is over and the country is slowly recovering. The African Union
is playing an increasing role in settling conflicts. 

We know that the best way to reduce poverty is through economic growth. And we
know that economic growth can be increased by aid. Fifteen countries in Africa
had average growth rates above 4% throughout the 1990s. Half of Africa had
growth of over 5.9% in 2001. Many of the countries which have benefited from
increased aid, such as Uganda and Mozambique, have seen poverty fall over an
extended period. Targeted British assistance, for example, has already enabled
Uganda to introduce universal primary education and free basic health care. 

We can also increase the effectiveness of our aid. Tied aid, directed by the
priorities of the donor rather than the recipient and bypassing government
systems, actually undermines effectiveness and internal accountability. 


Getting others involved

I am proud that Britain's involvement is helping this progress. We are doubling
our bilateral aid to Africa; it will reach £1 billion ($1.9 billion) in 2005,
and will rise further. We have written off 100% of the debts of the poorest
countries. We have dramatically increased help to tackle the big killers such as
AIDS and malaria. 

But to help Africa continue this progress we need a concerted, co-ordinated
global effort. Ad hoc, short-term measures will not do. A comprehensive
programme of action is needed with sustained commitment to implementation by
Africa and by the international community. Truly, a new partnership is required.
We need concerted action to improve opportunities and growth, to reduce debt, to
tackle HIV, malaria and TB, to fight corruption and to promote peace and
security. We also need to tackle trade barriers which push up prices for our
consumers, prevent African countries exporting their products and see Europe
spending more on subsidising its own farmers than on aid to Africa. This is an
investment for our, and Africa's, future: more than half of Africa is under 15.

It is already clear what sort of measures are needed, and I believe the
recommendations of the Commission for Africa, which will report in the spring,
will take us further.

Action requires more resources, and now. There will be calls to double aid to
Africa. I believe all the G8 members can do more: extending debt relief,
providing more resources to tackle HIV, giving more girls the chance of
education, reducing rates of infant mortality, building the infrastructure
needed for private-sector growth. Investment is needed now, and we must look at
ways to bridge the gap. Gordon Brown has set out one way we can do so through
the International Finance Facility, which would raise extra aid money by
leveraging capital markets and issuing bonds. 

I hope the G8 will agree not only to a plan of action but also to its
implementation, a process of monitoring and review. We all need to be
accountable for carrying out the commitments we have made.


The changing climate

Africa, of course, is also seen by experts as particularly vulnerable to climate
change. The size of its land-mass means that, in the middle of the continent,
overall rises in temperature will be up to double the global rise, with
increased risk of extreme droughts, floods and outbreaks of disease. It is
estimated that African GDP could decline by up to 10% because of climate change.

But no country will escape its impact. And there can be no doubt that the world
is getting warmer. Temperatures have already risen by 0.7°C over the past
century, and the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1991. It's
the fastest rise in temperatures in the northern hemisphere for a thousand
years.

This temperature rise has meant a rise in sea level that, if it continues as
predicted, will mean hundreds of millions of people increasingly at risk from
flooding. And climate change means more than warmer weather: other extreme,
increasingly unpredictable, weather events such as rainstorms and droughts will
also have a heavy human and economic cost.

It is true, of course, that some scientists still contest the reasons for these
changes. But it would be false to suggest that scientific opinion is equally
split. It is not. The overwhelming view of experts is that climate change, to a
greater or lesser extent, is man-made and, without action, will get worse. And
as the evidence gets stronger by the day, the sceptics dwindle in number. From
Arnold Schwarzenegger's California to China's Ningxia province, the world is
taking climate change seriously.

But just as technological progress and human activity have helped cause this
problem, it is also within our power to lessen its impact and adapt to change.
Science has alerted us to the dangers our planet faces and will help us meet
these challenges.

But we need to act now. Delay will only increase the seriousness of the problems
we need to reverse, and the economic disruption required to move to more
renewable forms of energy and sustainable manufacturing in the future. And the
G8, again, needs to lead: not just because we currently account for 47% of
global CO2 emissions, but also because it is our scientists, our industries and
our economies that must help solve this problem. 

Russian ratification of the Kyoto protocol means that we now have a new global
treaty that is about to come into force. This is good news. But the level of
change and ambition required will be far more than the Kyoto protocol is likely
to provide. And with the United States, the world's largest emitter of
greenhouse gases, refusing to sign up to the protocol, this makes the measures
we could secure through the G8 even more vital.

Although the United States will not ratify Kyoto, other approaches, such as the
McCain-Lieberman bill now going through Congress, could stand a better chance of
support. Some American states and businesses are also already taking a lead on
initiatives to reduce greenhouse emissions. New York has a state
emissions-reductions target of 5% below 1990 by 2010 and 10% by 2020. California
has a string of policies in train, including regulating carbon emissions from
vehicles and increasing the amount of energy generated from renewable sources to
20% of electricity sold into the state by 2010. 

The United States is also leading investment and research in the new low-carbon
economy. It is not a choice, as some suppose, between economic prosperity and
tackling climate change. It is technological advances and economic development
that will provide the realistic solution. It is the firms and countries that
lead the way in adapting to this challenge that will have the competitive
advantage in the future. 

In Britain our economy grew by 36% between 1990 and 2002 while greenhouse gas
emissions fell by 15%. British Petroleum has set and achieved targets, such as
reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions by 10% in just three years. To achieve
this, the company introduced an emissions-trading scheme: it cost $20m to
implement, yet saved it $650m over the three-year period. 

Those companies that adapt early to the demands of a future low-carbon economy
know they gain competitive advantage. So this is not just the right thing to do
for the sake of the planet. It is the right thing to do commercially. 


Why we should act

Advocates for action on climate change must confront three economic arguments.
First, if the case is so clear, why not just leave it to business? To that point
I would say it is precisely in this kind of long-term challenge, where there are
demonstrable and potentially irreversible social effects, with returns accruing
over periods beyond commercial discounting, that government must play a clear
role.

Second, critics charge that government is picking new, untried technologies that
may fail. Here I would say the approach of clever governments is not to pick
technologies, but to establish conditions where innovation is supported and
encouraged into the market-place. 

Finally, some argue that there are more immediate problems. In some senses, they
are right: over the next five years, for example, water pollution will cause
more harm worldwide. It is wrong, however, to see these problems as mutually
exclusive. Without a stable climate, addressing other environmental threats will
be impossible, ensuring a future of more degraded water and land. Every year
lost on tackling climate change will take us further along the path where the
costs of action multiply. And I have never believed that simple discounting can
be an adequate tool for potentially catastrophic outcomes 50 or more years
ahead.

We are at a stage where the role of government and global policy must be to
encourage the development and commercial viability of the new technologies that
have the potential to mitigate the effects of climate change. There is no single
“silver bullet” that will solve the problem, despite what some enthusiasts for
nuclear or hydrogen power may tell you. But a whole range of technologies are
either available now, or will become available, which, taken together, can make
a huge difference. 

I believe the G8 can take a global lead both in making the world aware of the
scale of the problem and in proposing ways to tackle them. Through the G8, we
have the opportunity to agree on what the most up-to-date investigations of
climate change are telling us about the threat we face. We could also endeavour
to identify and support the technological measures necessary to meet the threat,
which would complement rather than undercut the Kyoto protocol. And the G8 must
also engage actively with other countries with growing energy needs—such as
China, India, Brazil and South Africa—to ensure that they meet their needs
sustainably and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, which seem
inevitable.

Given the different positions of the G8 nations on this issue, such agreement
will be a major advance. But I believe it is achievable and necessary. 

I have no doubt that some may argue that aiming so high both on climate change
and Africa is a hostage to fortune. I recall that fictional Whitehall mandarin,
Sir Humphrey Appleby of “Yes, Prime Minister”, describing such ambitions as
“courageous” when he hoped to put Jim Hacker off a particular course of action.
But I remain hopeful that we can succeed in these aims. It is vital for the
world that we do.


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]