Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Sustainable Development

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
World leaders are meeting in Johannesburg at the moment to discuss sustainable development. So how do we help poor countries develop?

With regard to government-to-government aid, how can we expect 3rd world governments to use aid properly when they are full of corruption and run by crackpots like Robert Mugabe?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are many things that can be done. If all the rich countries were to give 0.7% of their gross annual budgets to third world countries and write off their existing debts, poverty would be greatly alleviated, if not eradicated altogether. If we were all to adopt a real foreign ethical policy and stop selling arms to oppressive regimes, as well as imposing embargoes and applying pressure to tyrants like Mugabe, many of the existing conflicts around the world end. If all industrialised countries were to cut off their CO2 emissions in a substantial way many of today's environmental problems would be drastically reduced. As it is, few nations are prepared to do such things, and when the president of the richest and most polluting country in the world can't even be arsed to attend the summit you have to wonder what hope there is.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As said in other threads, handing them fishing rods instead of the fish.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My point is that many of the poorist countries in the world are run by dictators who spend aid on their own armies instead of helping the population. Instead of just handing over large sums to corrupt governments, aid should be directed at charities who can implement improvements at a local level and who don't waste it on government beaurocracy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Africa has suffered from corrupt governments since the end of colonialism. This is the primary reason (or at the least one of the principle causes) for the political instability of the region.

    The cancellation of debt for third world nations is a positive step forward, but must be aided by the promotion of stable government.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read somewhere that a survey was done, asking whether countries would be willing to sacrifice a small amount of GDP to save the environment. In every country most citizens said yes, except for one....i think you can guess which.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bill Bryson.


    As for environmental aspects, there is no evidence that humans are the cause of global warming or the hole in the ozone layer. We've only known of the existence of the hole for 20 years, and global tempratures have fluctuated radically for millenia.

    I know we have to start on damage control, cut down on somethings, but not for the reasons the greenies go on about.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interestingly it is the poor countries who have the biggest problems with air pollution. Have you heard of the big cloud over Asia? While European vehicles and industry have become far more efficient and far less polluting in recent years, India, China and the former USSR are still using cars, trucks and buses that were outdated even 10 years ago.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see the need to save the environemt, its not an eternal thing, the sun will pack up one day, what does it matter which is the last generation to inhabit the earth ? The next won't know anything about it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well considering the Sun has an estimated 5bn years left it'd be a bit selfish to purposely destroy mankind in the next 300 years or so, don't you think? And considering we haven't made contact with extraterrestrial life and don't have the technology yet to colonise space, it'd be a damn shame to become extinct for the sake of it.

    The fact is that action has to be taken now. Fresh water is already running scarce and will become the earth's most valued resource during this century. We continue to overfish, to decimate the world's rainforests, to pollute indiscriminately and raise global temperature, to allow thousands of children in the third world to die every day from preventable causes. Shame on us.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    The fact is that action has to be taken now. Fresh water is already running scarce and will become the earth's most valued resource during this century. We continue to overfish, to decimate the world's rainforests, to pollute indiscriminately and raise global temperature, to allow thousands of children in the third world to die every day from preventable causes. Shame on us.

    The saddest thing is that many of these problems are preventable. OK so we can't do much to prevent climate change, but we have the technology to recycle much of what we use, provide desalination plants for countries with a poor water supply and to prevent many diseases. We just lack the political will to implement these changes.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Recycling

    If anyone saw the Scottish news last night, they might have seen a story about Alba resource recovery being refused planning permission for a huge recycling centre in Fife. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2230892.stm The same company also wants to build a similar centre at the Killoch Colliery in Ayrshire but again has come up against fierce opposition from local NIMBYs.

    Alba says that recycling can only be viable if done on a commercial basis (and I agree), but the locals don't want hundreds of bin wagons cluttering up the already busy and dangerous local roads. What could be done to solve this kind of problem?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The 'Not in my backyard' protestations are always a hot political potato. At the end the government will have to choose a site against the wishes of the local residents and stick with it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seeing as theis thread was originally about Jo'burg, did anyone else see what came out of the conference yesterday?

    Reduced number of people without access to clean water by half, by 2015 :eek:

    Even though to could do this by 2005, for all if they really wanted to.


    and...er...that's about it really. That's all they agreed to so far.

    60,000 delegates, nearly a week and that's yer lot. Nice to know that our money isn't being wasted then :rolleyes:

    The US/OPEC still don't want to talk about renewables, so no surprise there, oh and Mugabe thinks that the reason his country is having problems at the moment is Tony Blair :eek:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LOL. Yes, I suppose we could say Mugabe was having a bad "Blair" day.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    LOL. Yes, I suppose we could say Mugabe was having a bad "Blair" day.

    Well, we could... :p

    I thought it was hilarious, but for some reason he got applauded :eek: Now I know that TB has many things to answer for, but I don't think that Mugabe can really pin that one on him :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even one agreement is better than nothing. And at the end of the day we all knew someone was going to torpedo any possible agreement on renewable energy, so few were expecting real progress there.

    Most of those who are mocking the conference are the usual Sun/Telegraph/Mail capitalist right-wingers who ultimately hate the word environment because they believe it interferes with their right to make as much profit as possible without having to worry about pollution/climate.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Ebb
    I don't see the need to save the environemt, its not an eternal thing, the sun will pack up one day, what does it matter which is the last generation to inhabit the earth ? The next won't know anything about it.


    but the more we look after our enviroment the longer we can stay on this planet, which is giving us more time to develope orbital elevators, Instant matter transferal and other things that mean we can get off this planet, and inhabit someplace else.

    People say that they have a "natural urge" have babies, i disagree, i think the urge is actually telling them to preserve the human race, and having babies is the only way that most people see themselves able to do.

    Just because the reasons that most of the stupid green crowd give are tosh, there is no reason to assume that the effect they are after is irrelevent.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Ebb
    I don't see the need to save the environemt, its not an eternal thing, the sun will pack up one day, what does it matter which is the last generation to inhabit the earth ? The next won't know anything about it.


    but the more we look after our enviroment the longer we can stay on this planet, which is giving us more time to develope orbital elevators, Instant matter transferal and other things that mean we can get off this planet, and inhabit someplace else.

    People say that they have a "natural urge" have babies, i disagree, i think the urge is actually telling them to preserve the human race, and having babies is the only way that most people see themselves able to do.

    Just because the reasons that most of the stupid green crowd give are tosh, there is no reason to assume that the effect they are after is irrelevent.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the sooner we develop renewable energy sources in Europe the better. let OPEC keep their oil, for all the good it will do them when don't need it anymore. As for the US, pah. Whilst all of europe are investing money in filters in factories, clean cars e.t.c. the Yanks just sit back and don't give a toss.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As Blair announced that he was giving £1bn in "third world" aid, so you think that Zimbabwe and Namibia will exclude themselves from applying for any of it?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I see that Colin Powell was humiliated yesterday when he tried to address the Conference. Shame his boss didn't have the decency to show up.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Frankly Bush has long since sidelined Powell anyways. He prefers to listen to the gung-ho right-wing maniacs in the administration like Rumsfeld and Ashcroft more than his own Secretary of State. Sadly Powell is probably the only halfway decent person in the administration and he's is about as effective at guiding US foreign policy as Bush is at making peace.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Frankly Bush has long since sidelined Powell anyways. He prefers to listen to the gung-ho right-wing maniacs in the administration like Rumsfeld and Ashcroft more than his own Secretary of State.

    I wouldn't be so sure. I think what you actually see is their differing role. Powell has to play a diplomatic role. Just as Jack Sraw does over here. War is seen as a failure in diplomacy.

    If you look into some of his speeches he can be just a "hawkish"
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    I see that Colin Powell was humiliated yesterday when he tried to address the Conference.

    Excellent wasn't it. Just as he was condemning Zimbabwe (correctly I might add), the anti-US protesters started, thus giving the impression that actually they support Mugabe.

    Talk about time and place.

    Yes, I agree that the US should be comdemned for many of its actions, but that really wasn't the time to do it.

    Later, when he was talking about US commitment to the eviroment (how he kept a straight face I'll never know) should have been used wider than it was. Unfortunately the short sighted anti group missed their opportunity because they had already left.
    Shame his boss didn't have the decency to show up.

    60,000 people there already, and they come to very few agreements. Do you honestly think his being there would make any realy difference?

    Personally I think that most countries were over-represented. Look at the UK. Blair, Meacher, Prescott, Hodge...we sent four cabinet ministers FFS
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps Tony feels secretly ashamed about Labour's environmental record and sent a massive delegation to compensate for its evil deeds? ;)

    With regard to Bush, considering that he and his predecessors have systematically boycotted, ignored or pulled out of every single environmental treaty in the last few years the least he could do is to show his face and explain how the U.S. can be committed to the environment when it's doing fuck all about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.