How do we talk about resource limits, fair shares and development?

July 25, 2011

The Duke of Wellington on the aid bureaucracy

July 25, 2011

$66bn ends world poverty; the Great Divergence; bashing BAE and the China-bashers; the UK and Africa; talk v action on greenhouse gases; ultra-low tech lighting: links I liked

July 25, 2011
empty image
empty image

How much would it cost to eradicate (that’s right – not halve, but end) world poverty? “If we could accurately and directly supplement the income of each poor person in the world to bring his or her daily income up to $1.25, it would have cost $96 billion in 2005. But by 2010, as the number of poor people fell, that cost had dropped to $66 billion.” Charles Kenny discusses his findings here. the great divergence

Dani Rodrik discusses the ‘great divergence’ since 1990 between growth in developing and developed countries (see graph)

“You are not setting up a charity trust, or a personal or a private foundation, or some kind of outward branch for great super-duper positive campaigns that BAE will do to win friends in nice places, and gain influence in nice places – you are paying a fine, a punishment.” BAE Systems gets a well-earned kicking in the House of Commons for dragging its feet over a £29.5m fine it was ordered to pay the people of Tanzania in February 2010.

Voice of America’s China-in-Africa bashing gets bashed in turn by someone who actually knows about the subject

Was David Cameron’s truncated trip to Africa  a sign of a new, more balanced UK-African relationship

 ‘Developing countries, whether by intention or not, have been critical participants in reducing the carbon load.  Furthermore, poor countries have borne their fair portion of global carbon alleviation expenditures.’ CGD’s David Wheeler shows that poor countries have been doing climate change mitigation all along – hope the UN negotiations on burden sharing have taken notice.

Illuminate your windowless shack (during the daytime at least) with nothing more than an empty plastic bottle and some bleach and water. Doesn’t get more low tech than this (except windows, maybe)…. [h/t John Magrath]

1 comment

  1. In the book FROM POVERTY TO POWER
    it says “the burden-sharing framework embodied in the post-2012 climate regime must be defensible according to objective application of these principles and must satisfy more subjective ideas of justice and fairness. One approach that does this is captured in the Greenhouse Development Rights [GDR] framework.”

    What it doesn’t say is that [in the words of the GDR proposal] . . . under GDRs . . . and I ask if the author/OXFAM are supporting this point [?] . . .

    “the national mitigation obligations of the high-RCI countries of the North vastly exceed the reductions they could conceivably make at home. In fact, by 2030, their mitigation obligations will typically come to exceed even their total domestic emissions!

    *Which is to say that wealthier and higher-emitting countries would be given “negative allocations,” as is necessary in order to open enough atmospheric space for the developing world.*”
    [unquote].

Leave a comment