G8 leaders agree $50bn aid boost

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

hiphop

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Apr 2, 2001
Messages
7,410
Location
in the jungle
from bbc.co.uk

G8 leaders agree $50bn aid boost

World leaders gather as the G8 summit in Gleneagles ends


Prime Minister Tony Blair says the G8 has agreed a $50bn (£28.8bn) aid boost, as leaders sign the communique.
"It isn't all everyone wanted, but it is progress," the prime minister said.

He added that the agreement included a signal for a deal on trade, access to Aids treatment, debt cancellation and $3bn for the Palestinian authority.

"All of this does not change the world tomorrow, it is a beginning, not an end," he said, as Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo welcomed the deal.

"The meeting of G8 leaders and African leaders is a great success," the Nigerian president said.


G8: PROGRESS SO FAR
Stalemate seen on climate change as US position barely budges
G8 nations agreed to full debt cancellation for 18 countries, while African countries call for debt relief for all Africa
EU members have pledged to reach a collective aid target of 0.56% of GDP by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015
The G8 agrees a $50bn (£28.8bn) boost to aid
A ' signal' for a new deal on trade


Analysis: A successful G8?

Mr Blair said that the communique also included a promise of a new peacekeeping force for Africa as well as the commitment "in return by African leaders to democracy and good governance and the rule of law".

He added that in the wake of Thursday's attacks, the communique is the "definitive expression of our collective will to act in the face of death.

"It has a pride and a hope and a humanity that can lift the shadow of terrorism."

The leaders have previously said the debts of 18 of the poorest countries in Africa will be forgiven.

The communique will probably reconfirm a promise to write off the debts of a further nine countries if they comply with certain criteria.

It now appears doubtful that agreement has been reached to increase the share of GDP given to developing countries to the UN target of 0.7%.

Mr Blair's comments also signal that little concrete has been agreed on trade.


Blair: Hope can fight terror

Attacks make G8 impact

The so-called G5 developing countries - Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa - have called for tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to be removed as part of efforts to eradicate poverty.

However, Mr Bush had said that little meaningful reform of trade was likely unless Europe reformed its Common Agricultural Policy.


NGOs remained critical of the progress made.

"The people have roared but the G8 has whispered," said Kumi Naidoo, chair of the Global Call to Action against Poverty.

Some described the talks on climate change as a " significant lost opportunity".

Earlier, a leaked draft of the climate change communique suggested that little progress has been made - with US views on the Kyoto protocol hardly shifting and no set targets made.

"While uncertainty remains in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now," the leaked draft said.

It also acknowledged that the UN framework on climate change - of which the Kyoto protocol is the best-known part - is the "appropriate forum for negotiating the future of the multilateral regime on climate change".

G8 leaders have indicated the statement represents progress but Stephen Tindale, a spokesperson for Greenpeace, said: "The G8 has committed to nothing new but at least we haven't moved backwards on the environment."

The Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, a worldwide coalition of environmental and development campaigners, said: "Urgent action is now required to substantially reduce emissions, reduce fossil fuel dependence and to protect people around the world, especially the vulnerable, the poor and disappearing nations."
 
Good on 'em.

As for energy policy -- I really wish people would stop harping on climate change as the reason we need to reduce our dependence on oil. Climate change is a really difficult subject, and there are legitimate questions about the role that greenhouse gases play in global warming.

There are plenty of other excellent reasons for the world to cut its dependence on oil, and we should focus on those.
 
Last edited:
Kyoto is a total waste of money, they should scrap it and use half of the money saved to erradicate AIDS and improve hygene in the world.

Speedracer, greenhouse gasses are a critical factor in climate; but the distinction between natural variation and the extent of human induced variation is important as is what other mechanisms are at play, not to mention the historical range of climates and variations (even sea levels have a lot of variation as shown by dating of coral shelves over recent geological history thought to be relatively stable). The effects of global climate change could be an overall benefit to man, understanding what they could be is important. Where the change is and what it will be is another; while the antarctic peninsula is undergoing warming now the rest of the continent is cooling down, why?
 
Last edited:
speedracer said:
There are plenty of other excellent reasons for the world to cut its dependence on oil, and we should focus on those.

Exactly. It just happens to be incidental that nuclear power and hydrogen fuel would be virtually emission free. And when dealing with capitalist society, "altruism" never even reaches the radar. The discussion should be about how expensive oil will remain, and how it will permanently hamper the global economy and profits until we find a solution.

Melon
 
Which raises issues about oil and how much of it there is. Methanogenic extreme thermophiles are being discovered at greater and greater depths, what role could they be playing ~ you have hydrocarbons at depth, they get recycled through the lithosphere at subduction zones as methane hydrates are brought down with the oceanic slab?

Now the abiotic oil hypothesis does not hold true for practically all fields explored to date, we have to have the right source rocks and the biomarkers and carbon isotopes present point to a biogenic source. It would warrant investigation if there are parties interested in funding such reesearch.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
Which raises issues about oil and how much of it there is. Methanogenic extreme thermophiles are being discovered at greater and greater depths, what role could they be playing ~ you have hydrocarbons at depth, they get recycled through the lithosphere at subduction zones as methane hydrates are brought down with the oceanic slab?

I'm not going to say that this is impossible, but remember: the price of oil is not determined by actual demand, per se, but by speculation and rumor and, most importantly, *perception.*

But even if these played a significant role in oil production, it will then boil down to global warming and greenhouse gases. There's multiple reasons, ultimately, why we should switch away from fossil fuels.

Melon
 
The internal combustion engine will surely be replaced one day; and if you run power plants off fossil fuels then geosequestering the emissions would eliminate the effect of climate change.

Whatever is cheaper and/or more effective should be adopted, I don't think that forcing the adoption of more expensive technologies earlier solves the problem any better.
 
A_Wanderer said:
The internal combustion engine will surely be replaced one day; and if you run power plants off fossil fuels then geosequestering the emissions would eliminate the effect of climate change.

Whatever is cheaper and/or more effective should be adopted, I don't think that forcing the adoption of more expensive technologies earlier solves the problem any better.

I think reducing everything to a price tag is probably why we've become so uninventive the last couple decades, but that's for another discussion.

I would most rather assume that oil is finite, rather than assume that it is renewable, because if we spent the money on fossil fuel plants, we run the risk of them becoming quickly obsolete.

I have more confidence in newer nuclear technologies that rely on Uranium-238 and maybe even Thorium-232. Plus, I'm frankly tired of being held hostage by corrupt third world nations that just happen to sit on large deposits of oil.

Melon
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
from bbc.co.uk

G8: PROGRESS SO FAR
Stalemate seen on climate change as US position barely budges
G8 nations agreed to full debt cancellation for 18 countries, while African countries call for debt relief for all Africa
EU members have pledged to reach a collective aid target of 0.56% of GDP by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015
The G8 agrees a $50bn (£28.8bn) boost to aid
A ' signal' for a new deal on trade


...
The leaders have previously said the debts of 18 of the poorest countries in Africa will be forgiven.

The communique will probably reconfirm a promise to write off the debts of a further nine countries if they comply with certain criteria.


The debt releif is very deceitful. This is the actual aggrement.
They've made out that they've given 100% debt cancellation, and it's not true. Only eighteen out of sixty-two eligible countries are going to get it, and there are economic conditions attached. The G8 are saying a country has to privatize water, electricity, roads, railways -- and what business do we have to insist that Zambia privatize their National Bank? This is part of that micro-managing approach.

Even more disappointing, and not many picked this up in the announcement of debt relief -- aid will be reduced by the amount of debt relief given. So they're giving and taking at the same time.

We've got to be careful to look at the fine print and not claim victory too quickly. We'll have to keep pressure on. This is the beginning of the process, not the end. There are more big important meetings, a UN summit in September, a WTO meeting in December where trade will be on the table. The travesty in Europe is that cows are subsidized for $2.50 a day when over a billion people live on less than that; the travesty in the US is that cotton farmers receive three times as much in subsidies than the aid we give to Africa. These issues are not going to be addressed, they will be barely touched on, this week, but they'll be up for discussion in September and December. Anyone reading this who is starting to become more involved -- my hope is that they'll continue this interest and pressure. We have to, if we really want to make a difference. Noreena Hertz, who is Associate Director for the Centre for International Business at the University of Cambridgeessure. We have to, if we really want to make a difference.

Thanks to atU2
 
Ever since they privatized the electricity here it has become so expensive that most ordinary people can barely afford it and many businesses have shut down and moved to other countries because their utility costs are so high. Which in turn means job losses and less economic activity...ie. more poverty. People here are justifiably leary of the magical one-size-fits-all formulas of the IMF. :tsk:
 
Just one question......is this 50 billion dollars what Bono and Live 8 and every wanted......or did they want more?
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
G8: PROGRESS SO FAR
Stalemate seen on climate change as US position barely budges
G8 nations agreed to full debt cancellation for 18 countries, while African countries call for debt relief for all Africa
EU members have pledged to reach a collective aid target of 0.56% of GDP by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015
The G8 agrees a $50bn (£28.8bn) boost to aid
A ' signal' for a new deal on trade

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that the EU countries agreed on the 0,7% a long time ago and that only a few countries kept their promise. And now the're basically making the same agreement again, only to cut it down to 0,56% for the first five years? What a disgrace. :tsk:

I haven't read all of the agreements yet, but I think I have more than enough reasons to be disappointed: The stalemate and empty promises (no actual targets) on climate control, debt cancellation on only 18 countries with outrageous economical, and more than likely political, conditions, re-hashing 30 year old agreements and AFAIK no changes on farm subsidies and opening up markets.

What I am happy with is the increased availability of aids drugs and the fact the the US finally seemes to have acknowlegde that global warming is a problem and that mankinds has a hand in it (something the US should have done decades ago, so in that sense, it's also a bit embarrassing).

All in all, a little progress I guess, but ver disappointing. :tsk:
 
melon said:

I think reducing everything to a price tag is probably why we've become so uninventive the last couple decades, but that's for another discussion.

Like it or not, that's how humans behave. Surely you've read Freakonomics, yes?
 
unosdostres14 said:
Just one question......is this 50 billion dollars what Bono and Live 8 and every wanted......or did they want more?

Bono was just on BBC world a few minutes ago and said something like "Its not exactly what they wanted, but its gonna go a long away"
 
speedracer said:
Like it or not, that's how humans behave. Surely you've read Freakonomics, yes?

I'm not exactly sure that's always been the case. I tend to believe that's more the result of folks like Ayn Rand and supply-side economists, who have reduced everything to selfish and greedy banalities.

So while we've been in our 25 year quest for short-term profits, we've been ignoring the long-term picture. And sure...you can make cheap plastic trinkets in China on a short term basis, but when it comes to overhauling our energy policy effectively, we have to accept that there is no "short term." That's where our society fails.

Melon
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
melon do you get paid for advertising nuclear energy? :D

Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys on the other side of the ocean have been using it effectively for years.
 
Back
Top Bottom