Erudite Relics of Loc Huu Ho

Nearly half of the World’s population are currently living below the $US 2 a day poverty line. These numbers only look to increase as the Global population is set to expand by another 1.2 billion over the next ten years, and at the same time the stark income gap is expanding. Currently 40 percent of the poorest make up just 5 percent of the total income while three quarter’s of the world’s income is owned by a mere 20 percent of the World’s richest. Global poverty is another aspect that is directly related to not only climate change but other consumption habits, and in trying to solve the World’s environmental state we can aim to improve the living situations of those impoverished. Yet there are two ways we can have an effect on those barely getting by and dying, and even though being ethical consumers and directly cutting carbon emissions will help, it is worth nothing that our efforts may be better spent addressing their plight head on and that in turn will have a greater impact on the environment as well.

This is an interesting argument put up by Bjorn Lomborg, the man who organizes the Copenhagen Consensus and is one of the professors in the Copenhagen Business School, who says that instead of generating our budgets around the matters of climate change alone we should hone them on humanity causes. Lomborg recognizes that by cutting back on carbon emissions we can indirectly reduce the amount of those suffering from hunger, but if we spend our funds directly on Global poverty we can be 5,000 times more effective. Should the money be spent on climate changing matters alone with $180 billion until 2100 the hungry would be spared by 2 million during that time, yet if instead the money was spent in a way mapped out by the UN to attack hunger head on 229 million would be saved right now.

Further, by changing the focus of foreign aide from a simply climate and carbon gas perspective to that of malnutrition, agriculture, and immunization, we would be able to net 15 to 20 times a greater return for the money spent. The fact is, with the estimated 3 to 7 degree Fahrenheit rise in Global temperatures by 2100, the $180 billion proposed to be spent annually until then will only get us a reward of a 0.3 degree reduction. While that is in the right direction, we must wonder if the funds could be better spent elsewhere. There are many other points and statistics to his argument, but I feel the point being made is that there is also an ethical component. Just as the environment is in need of dire attention, so too are the millions upon millions of those suffering under hunger and Global poverty.

There is much to be discussed and planned in the Copenhagen meeting that is underway as of Monday, and it seems that while countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to curb Global warming, they should also plan with their hearts as well. The need for ethical consumption is something of a life and death matter, quite literally, and part of it obviously comes down to looking long term and where our World is headed (climate change and population statistics included) but it should also take into account the here and now. With so many nations and people left hungry and suffering, they need our aide just as much as our planet, and our resources and budgets should reflect that. And according to Lomborg this is not a one or the other type of situation, as he has the facts and numbers to prove that by taking care of the hungry today we will not only yield a greater return for the costs but also do well in combating the climate change issue as well.

Source: Caitlin Chock from Ethical Consumption