G8 Summit Thread~L'Aquila

[Netto Azure]

G8 pledges to boost food supplies

Many farmers in developing countries are at the mercy of drought or flooding
​

Spoiler

Leaders of the G8 developed nations have pledged $20bn (£12bn) for efforts to boost food supplies to the hungry, on the final day of a summit in Italy.
The investment, which is $5bn more than had been expected, will fund a three-year initiative to help poor nations develop their own agriculture.
US President Barack Obama said the issue of food security was of huge importance to all nations in the world.
Richer nations had a moral obligation to help poorer nations, he said.
Mr Obama added that the G8 nations had agreed to commit $15bn for the new initiative going into Friday's meeting, but had then promised an additional $5bn in "hard commitments" during the talks.
"We do not view this assistance as an end in itself," he said.
"We believe that the purpose of aid must be to create the conditions where it's no longer needed, to help people become self-sufficient, provide for their families and lift their standards of living."
Mr Obama, who has relatives in Kenya, said he had drawn on his family's personal experience in his discussions with other world leaders.
The US will reportedly contribute some $3.5bn to the programme.
Mr Obama met representatives of Angola, Algeria, Nigeria and Senegal in L'Aquila, where the summit is being held. He will also meet Pope Benedict XVI in Rome before embarking on an African tour later on Friday.
African leaders had earlier urged G8 nations to live up to past aid pledges.
BBC economics correspondent Andrew Walker says the idea is to put more emphasis on helping people feed themselves.
That is to be achieved with more investment in the agriculture of developing countries, and the G8 nations - Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US - will provide significant resources, our correspondent adds.
However, although the total amount of overseas development aid (ODA) was increased in 2008, the rich countries are still behind on their target to double aid that was made at the G8 Gleneagles Summit in 2005 - and Italy is among the laggards.
Not all the money pledged to the agriculture initiative at the summit will be new funding.
Kanaya Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, told the BBC that he welcomed the announcement of more investment in agriculture in the developing world.
"It is time for us to switch because food security is not just food aid," he said.
"It is the ability of people to produce food locally and for them to be able to have access to local markets."
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who also attended Friday's talks, told Reuters news agency beforehand that the key message from African nations was that the G8 had to live up to its commitments.
Aid organisations have criticised some members for failing to deliver on the promise made at the 2005 G8 summit to increase annual aid levels to sub-Saharan Africa by $25bn by 2010.
Italy, the present summit host, has come under particular pressure for cutting, rather than increasing, aid this year.
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has said the global economic crisis and Italy's mounting debts are responsible for a delay in Rome meeting its promises.

With the Global Recession...it's a good thing. But the whole Aid structure in Africa needs to be reexamined. =/
​

 

[Nicoleta01]

In a related note, the people over at Greenpeace unveiled a banner on Mount Rushmore, to try and drum up support/awareness of Global Warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/greenpeace-defaces-mount-rushmore/

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/...7/08/greenpeace_climbers_have_just_hung_a_ban

Aid does need to be reexamined, especially any form of monetary aid that poorer countries may recieve. As for food aid, maybe it's time to introduce how to grow the food best suited for the environment.


EDIT: Woops XD

 

[Phoenicks]

Aid does need to be reexamined, especially any form of monetary aid that poorer countries may recieve. As for food aid, maybe it's time to introduce how to grow the food best suited for the environment.

I agree with that. I believe that one of Warren Buffet's sons is spending money trying to develop foods that are specialized to grow well and help with the hunger in Africa. I think we need to help, but it's even better if we help them to provide for themselves.

 

[Netto Azure]

In a related note, the people over at Greenpeace unveiled a banner on Mount Rushmore, to try and dumb up support/awareness of Global Warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/greenpeace-defaces-mount-rushmore/

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/...7/08/greenpeace_climbers_have_just_hung_a_ban

Aid does need to be reexamined, especially any form of monetary aid that poorer countries may recieve. As for food aid, maybe it's time to introduce how to grow the food best suited for the environment.

I saw what you did there LOL. XD

Well if they do have a reputable and stable democratic government...I don't mind monetary aid.

World powers accept warming limit

​

Spoiler

Developed and developing nations have agreed that global temperatures should not rise more than 2C above 1900 levels, a G8 summit declaration says.
That is the level above which, the UN says, the Earth's climate system would become dangerously unstable.
US President Barack Obama said the countries had made important strides in dealing with climate change.
But the G8 failed to persuade developing countries to accept targets of cutting emissions by 50% by 2050.

On Wednesday, the G8 agreed its own members would work towards 80% cuts by the same date.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the G8 had not done enough and should also set 2020 targets.
He said that while the G8's Wednesday agreement was welcome, its leaders also needed to establish a strong and ambitious mid-term target for emissions cuts.




The second day of the summit, in the Italian city of L'Aquila, opened its discussions to take in the so-called G5 nations - Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. Egypt is a special invitee.
In other developments:

• The world's biggest economies have agreed to work to reach a global trade deal by 2010
• Leaders of major developed and developing nations have agreed not to resort to competitive currency devaluations
• In a joint statement, President Obama and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the detention of British embassy staff by the Iranian authorities was unacceptable

Significant step
The latest declaration was issued by the Major Economies Forum, of 16 developed and developing nations - the G8, G5, Australia, South Korea and Indonesia - plus the European Union.
The group accounts for about 80% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions.

"We recognise the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2C," it said.
It added that the economies would work towards a global goal for substantially reducing emissions by 2050 between now and December, when the UN holds talks in Copenhagen on a successor to the Kyoto treaty.
President Obama, who chaired the meeting, said the countries had had a candid and open discussion about the growing threat of climate change and what must be done both individually and collectively to address it.
"I believe we've made some important strides forward as we move towards Copenhagen," he said.
"I don't think I have to emphasise that climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time. The science is clear and conclusive and the impacts can no longer be ignored."
Early agreement 'unlikely'
RK Pachauri, who chairs the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, praised the declaration's mention of the 2C limit but said more details were needed.
"It certainly doesn't give you a roadmap on how you should get there but at least they've defined the destination," he told the BBC World Service Newshour programme.

Mr Obama added that the United States, as a major polluter, had not met its responsibilities in the past, but those days were over.
But his scientific adviser, John Holdren, told the BBC it was unlikely that the US could come to any early agreement on tough reductions in emissions by 2020 proposed by the EU.
"If we had not wasted the last eight years, we could probably achieve that target," he said.
"But we did waste the last eight years and in consequence, it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to officially embrace a target that is not realistically within reach."
BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says the declaration is a significant step, with all big countries rich and poor agreeing there is a scientific limit on the amount we should warm the climate.
But there is still a huge way to go, he says, as developing nations like India will not sign up to any 2050 targets unless rich nations show more determination and offer more cash.
The G8 summit began in L'Aquila on Wednesday, with the first day largely taken up with discussion of the fragile state of the global economy.
The leaders also issued a statement reaffirming that they were "deeply concerned" by Iran's nuclear programme and condemning North Korea's recent nuclear test and missile launches.
African leaders will join the summit on Friday to push for a new initiative to fund farming in the developing world and tackle global hunger.

​

First of all I don't want to get into the whole "Climate Change is natural/hoax" argument/debate since the UN and the world's governments accept the fact/whatever on Man-made Climate Change.

Secondly, I'm just happy that this issue has put forth Energy Independence/Renewables into the forefront of the US/world's agenda since Fossil Fuels won't last forever.

And I agree with the whole "Give them a fishing pole" argument...but still provide food aid while building industries since...they might be malnourished by the time they do build those. =/​

 

[Eredar Warlock]

I still believe the best way to get off foreign oil would be to invest in all alternatives. That means drilling our own oil, funding natural gas (Which we have in enormous abundance) as well as nuclear energy, solar, wind, and more hydroelectric power (Although I'm not sure exactly what more they could do with that, honestly). To cut out drilling our own oil, using our own natural gas and cutting out nuclear power is not economically sound for this country.

I would also like to stress that the American Public is not going to invest very heavily in the kinds of vehicles that Obama is advocating, particularly here in Rural America. We have no use for them. In order to work here, you need something with a lot of horsepower. And also, big families with more than two kids need a vehicle like a minivan or an SUV. The only way families will buy those vehicles is if they are forced, either by some form of law making it illegal to use those kinds of vehicles or making it impossible to service them.

Last, I think the US shouldn't make any commitments to any of this unless we can make sure China and India do as well. China and India have basically said "screw you" on the matter of emissions. That's why I believe we shouldn't do anything overly drastic until we get everyone on board.

 

[Valdez]

What the poor African, South American, and Asian nations need is fair trade, not aid. Monetary aid is mostly siphoned off by the corrupt governments. Start with debt relief so they don't need to worry about paying back billions to nations, and they can begin to invest in their own infrastructures (proof it works? When Clinton reduced the amount of debt owed by Uganda, three times the amount of children were able to go to school and get an education).

Then establish fair trade patterns so that you aren't ripping off the newly debt-free nations and can actually build a working economy. Fairness and equality are beautiful things!

 

[The Big Al]

The problem with large vehicles isn't the people who need them. There are people who buy these massive SUV's and Pick-up trucks when they could do all they do with a passenger car just to stroke their egos.

Also, electric motors and fuel cells can produce more horsepower. So, if power is your concern, you should actually support an expedited program to make electric and fuel cell vehicles marketable.

And, America should be leading the way, not waiting for others to get around to doing it before we do.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

And, America should be leading the way, not waiting for others to get around to doing it before we do.

I would agree if it didn't mean hamstringing ourselves economically. I still believe we should invest in all forms of energy that we can produce ourselves.

 

[The Big Al]

Lowering our carbon emissions would not hamstring our economy. If anything, it should jump start it. Investments in wind farming and research in improved battery technology are already generating jobs here in Michigan. If we went at it with our all, we could rebuild our economy and reduce our carbon emissions at the same time.

 

[Phoenicks]

Lowering our carbon emissions would not hamstring our economy. If anything, it should jump start it. Investments in wind farming and research in improved battery technology are already generating jobs here in Michigan. If we went at it with our all, we could rebuild our economy and reduce our carbon emissions at the same time.

First, none of these so-called 'Green energies' really work. Not in the sense that they don't provide power, but they're not any better for the environment. Second, those jobs aren't permanent when paid for with government money. The goverment will need more and more taxes to pay for those jobs.

 

[The Big Al]

What? Where did you hear that? They require no fuel to be extracted and transported to the site, produce no emissions, and utilize energy that already exists. They have no impact on the environment beyond initial construction and tiny area they occupy.

 

[Nicoleta01]

Wind requires a back-up generator when the wind isn't blowing. That requires oil currently. And Wind occupies a huge area, as does Solar. It takes a LOT of space to set these up. They aren't as efficent as oil or natural gas sadly.

 

[TTEchidna]

Yet.

Remember, the internal combustion engine was made in 1885. Cars didn't become mainstream until 30 years later almost.

 

[The Big Al]

And, they could use lithium to store energy while the wind is blowing/sun is shining for use when they aren't. Also, any power generated by wind solar, is power not being generated by fossil fuels and generating carbon. Even if it isn't perfect, it gets us closer to our goals.

Also, industry really needs to step up to the plate. They consume the vast majority of resources and produce most of the waste.

 

[Phoenicks]

Name an alternative energy, and I can name the flaw(s) it has that make it just as harmful to the environment. It's unadvoidable. Over time, we can make these energy sources more efficient, but this won't happen overnight. And more government resources thrown at the problems won't solve them.

 

[the gadfly]

People don't change their ways unless they have to. They are satisfied with the status quo.

I mean, the price of gasoline was over $4.50/gallon in the US, but did that kill sales of SUVs and other gas hogs? People hunkered down to wait for the storm to pass. Now sales of SUVs are up.

For all the talk of global warming, trade imbalances and whatever, the general public is more or less happy with the way things are.

Yes, there is a global recession, verging on a global depression.

But, you know what? The general public is hunkering down and saying to itself "this too will pass".

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Which is precisely why things are going to be slow to change. People won't change unless they are forced, and forced change in the US is tantamount to political suicide.

 

[the gadfly]

Which means we have to show them a better way.

Any ideas?

What will make them unsatisfied with the status quo?

 

[TTEchidna]

Nothing. Only when it doesn't pass do people get pissed off enough to change it.

 

[The Big Al]

Name an alternative energy, and I can name the flaw(s) it has that make it just as harmful to the environment. It's unadvoidable. Over time, we can make these energy sources more efficient, but this won't happen overnight. And more government resources thrown at the problems won't solve them.

Brother. I've already heard most of your arguments and think they're the most moronic and misconceived notions ever. Solar panels cast shadows that are harmful to wildlife, windmills kill birds, etc. It's all lies. Just because it's not instantaneous and perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.