RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

A Crucial Time in the Fight Against Global Poverty and Climate Change

by Ray Offenheiser 04-07-2009

The realities of global poverty are very stark. About a billion people around the world — one in six — are now considered chronically hungry, with 24,000 people dying daily of hunger-related causes.

Almost three billion people live on less than $2 a day, more than a billion of which try to survive on less than $1 a day.

More than 16,000 children are dying every day from hunger-related causes — that’s one every five seconds.

The global economic downturn is further increasing poverty. Aid, investment and remittances to poor countries are all falling, leaving many vulnerable people without jobs or enough money to feed their families. Many developing country governments don’t have the means to support their poorest people or implement big fiscal measures to tackle the crisis. The World Bank estimates the economic crisis could trap an additional 53 million people in poverty.

While aid alone is not enough for the poorest countries to escape the poverty trap – quality, long-term aid does make a huge difference. Poor country governments have used aid to scale up spending on education and health to help fight poverty.  And done right, aid can stimulate the global economy, promote global stability, and create goodwill around the world.

We appreciate and support the efforts of Senators Kerry and Lugar to restore cuts made to President Obama’s foreign aid budget. Cutting US foreign aid has ramifications for poor people worldwide that US citizens will pay for long after the financial crisis has ended, as cutting foreign aid can result in a lack of preparedness and an increase in the vulnerability of poor communities when disaster strikes.

While the US spends a relatively small amount of money on foreign aid, we must ensure that every US tax dollar allotted to foreign aid is used effectively to fight global poverty.  The US must reform its foreign aid system to ensure maximum impact and efficiency.

While we are likely to recover from the financial crisis, we are not likely to recover from a climate crisis unless urgent action is taken now. Around the world, millions of people are facing the fact that the impacts of climate change are here to stay – and will intensify.

Present and future unavoidable impacts of global warming are set to threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions – if not billions – of people. They will first halt, and then reverse human development. The poorest, most vulnerable people are being affected directly – first and worst – despite being least responsible for the crisis.

Climate change threatens to increase poverty and inequality and undermine efforts to reach the millennium development goals. Solutions to climate change must be designed with poor people’s needs in mind. We must build climate resilience in vulnerable communities and reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.

Now is the time for bold action to achieve a triple win on climate security, energy security, and poverty reduction around the world. Stepping up efforts to respond to climate change by investing in green jobs, renewable sources of energy, and clean technology could in fact strengthen and transform our global economy. Failing to act now on climate change will mean much greater costs later, not just dollars and cents, but also in human suffering, conflict and lives lost.

This is a crucial time in the fight against climate change and poverty. Just yesterday, Representatives Waxman and Markey introduced a draft discussion bill on global warming and the Obama administration has begun re-engaging in the global climate talks in Bonn, Germany.

Momentum is building toward the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December. We must all— faith leaders, Members of Congress, environmentalists, business leaders and anti-poverty activists— join the fight against global warming.

We at Oxfam are supporting the Mobilization to End Poverty because we know the tremendous power that individuals motivated by their faith bring to the task of creating a better and more just world for all people; and these are precisely the people who will be part of this conference.

Ray Offenheiser is the president of Oxfam America, a non-profit international development and relief agency that works to end global poverty. This post is adapted from remarks he made recently during a media conference call announcing the Mobilization to End Poverty. Click here to listen to audio of the call.

Categories: Environment, Poverty
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • justintime
    I agree with you that the causes of the crisis in Darfur are complex.

    Many experts on the region have pointed out that drought cycles in sub Saharan Africa are linked to increases in violent civil war. Climate experts argue that the recent severe and lingering drought in sub Saharan Africa is linked to the global warming trend.

    See this recent essay:

    Drought and Political Violence in sub-Saharan Africa by Christian Webersik
    Summary:
    The study of environmental change and civil war onset in Africa has become a major focus of attention in the scholarly literature. This paper argues that a negative change in rainfall in sub-Saharan countries is associated with higher risk of armed internal conflict. Societies, in particular in the developing world which are dependent on renewable resources are more vulnerable to environmental stress, such as erratic rainfall. In most sub-Saharan economies the manufacturing and industrial sectors are in preliminary stages. Instead, agriculture constitutes a large percentage of overall national economic income. In some countries, such as the Central African Republic, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the share of agriculture in the gross domestic
    Moreover, most agricultural production is based on rain-fed agriculture rather than irrigation agriculture. In Africa, less than 7 per cent of the overall agricultural production derives from irrigated lands. As a result, changes in rainfall patterns that can lead to drought translate into increased vulnerability and hence poverty. Compared to other parts of the world, Africa has the highest economic loss risk due to droughts. In turn, poverty can increase political instability and eventually culminate into violent conflict with possible spill-over effects to other countries, posing a threat to international security. As a general proposition, I argue that water scarcity induced by sudden rainfall shortages can lead to wealth deprivation that increases the likelihood of an armed rebellion. I hypothesize that regions with a higher dependency on agricultural production are more likely to experience civil conflict in a given drought year. It is in this context that a sudden economic shock caused by failing rains free labor leading to an abundant supply of potential rebel soldiers with low opportunity costs. Consequently, in an environment with reduced economic returns caused by
    drought the incentives to engage in a war economy increase. This argument is in line with the civil war literature that attempts to explain armed conflict by focusing on economic opportunity costs whether or not an individual is joining a rebellion If rainfall is shaping economic conditions in sub-Saharan African countries, then changes in
    rainfall patterns induced by either anthropogenic interference can be associated with the outbreak of civil violence, a connection, however, that has been not tested rigorously. There are few studies that have provided evidence that climate change will lead to decreased rainfall causing more widespread poverty while lowering rebel recruitment costs.
    Other authors arrived at similar conclusions using monthly rainfall data.
    A recent article published in the Atlantic Monthly argues in favor of an “ecological origin of the Darfur crisis” making climate change responsible for the death of thousands of people. This paper aims at making the connection between failing rains and armed conflict using a large-N study. Along these lines, a recent study published by the UN Environment Programme claims that “there is a very strong link between land degradation, desertification and conflict in Darfur.”


    Also see:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/darfur-cl...
    This article was the first to alert me to the link between global climate change and poverty.
    As one would expect, there are those who dispute these conclusions.
  • WaveTossed
    "Wave Tossed, you may know plenty of libertarians who are concerned about poverty, global warming and the world's many problems, but I know plenty who are indifferent and very few who have taken action based on their concern."

    And I know plenty of liberals, conservatives, socialists, neo-cons, anarchists -- people of every political philosophy who are indifferent and who fail to take actions based on their concerns.

    Maybe you need to widen your horizons a bit. I can refer you to sources, people, and web sites full of libertarians who take actions based upon their concerns. There are good, kind, decent libertarians. Just as their are good, kind, decent liberals, conservatives, socialists, neo-cons, anarchists, etc.
  • WaveTossed
    Mathematics basically has two types of reasoning: Inductive and deductive. We do mathematical proofs using deduction i.e. proving that when you multiply two negative numbers, you will get a positive answer. Then there is proof by induction. A third method of proof is proof by contradiction. When one proves a theorem or hypothesis: assume that the contrary or opposite is true and then find a contradiction in this contrary or opposite of the original theorem. In this way, one proves that the original theorem is true.

    I believe that this process is a bit different from the formal scientific method. Mathematics is a tool that a scientist can use in the process of using the scientific method. Math is also a discipline in itself to help develop logical thinking.

    As for computer/information science, this is a practical process. The programmer must use tools in a logical way to write a working program. Actually, I believe that the scientific method is used. The programmer forms a hypothesis i.e. writes a program that she/he believes will work. Then the programmer has to test this hypothesis to see if the hypothesis is actually true (the program works). Sometimes in this preliminary testing, some "bugs" are found and the programmer has to go back to the drawing board and make changes. Then test again. And so forth.
  • hammerud
    Squeaky, I kind of messed up my previous response I think. I meant to
    put in the statement Jesus made to the effect that "those that are of
    the truth hear my word. You do not hear them because you are not of
    the truth." (not sure who he was speaking to -- maybe the scribes and
    pharisees). There is something there that I really do not
    understand. I think it has to do with foreknowledge and what God sees
    when He views the human heart. Regarding science, the probability
    science info I gave you puts a nail in the theory of evolution in my
    opinion; but obviously it is discounted by those committed to the
    theory. The problem with all of this scientific input is that, unless
    I spend huge amounts of time going over all of the original research
    and assumptions that go into any of these conclusions, I simply have
    to take what they are presenting largely by faith. When something
    hits me as false "on its face," I simply do not have the interest or
    time to deal with it. I haven't looked into the original research of
    those I mentioned in the probability science input either, I just
    accept it; but I do not accept a lot of the stuff that "proves
    evolution." And, I guess, the opposite is true for you. Do you think
    the information I presented from probability science is significant?
    If it is credible, the theory of evolution crumbles. I haven't
    explored the ozone science. I just find what Al Gore did interesting
    in light of the political and economic agendas behind a lot of this
    stuff. Anyway, my chihuahua is bugging me again. Happy Easter.
  • justintime
    "Libertarianism makes you stupid" isn't meant as an ad hominem attack -- I apologize to you and anyone else who took it as such.
    Please take it to be a cautionary statement of concern for a friend looking for truth in the wrong place.

    Out of respect for your vast reservoir of patience and kindness in dealing with misinformation, I will refrain from using it again on the God's Politics blog.

    Have a Happy Easter.
  • justintime
    Wave Tossed, you may know plenty of libertarians who are concerned about poverty, global warming and the world's many problems, but I know plenty who are indifferent and very few who have taken action based on their concern.

    "Libertarianism makes you stupid" isn't meant as an ad hominem attack -- I apologize to you and anyone else who took it as such.
    Please take it to be a cautionary statement of concern for a friend looking for truth in the wrong place.

    Out of respect for squeaky's vast reservoir of patience and kindness in dealing with misinformation, I will refrain from using it again on the God's Politics blog.

    Have a Happy Easter.
  • squeaky
    Thanks--I'm a geologist.

    I don't know--does math and csci use the scientific method? All sciences, of course, use math and csci to investigate science. Even geology...

    I didn't do math right when I was an undergrad--I saw it more as something I had to get through, when it was really something important to my study of geology. I often think that education is wasted on the youth--sometimes it takes direct experience before someone can appreciate their course requirements are requirements for a reason, and not just to torture them.
  • hammerud
    Squeaky, I guess I would assume the person was not saved because the
    Holy Spirit enlightens one's heart to Scripture. Even reading the
    Bible, if unsaved, does not open ones eyes. Prov 1 "I will pour out
    my Spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you." and
    (paraphrase) "you don't hear them because they are spiritually
    discerned." Some people are simply blind to Scripture. I don't know
    what I would do with such a person. Probably pray for him/her. Depends
    on my sense of the relationship and the openness of the person to
    input. Probably would go thru some of the prophecies in Daniel. We
    have company now. I have to go.
  • hammerud
    Squeaky, that bothers me as well. All sorts of cover-ups in what we
    hear, which is my main point in my response to a lot of this stuff.
  • WaveTossed
    Justintime wrote: "Libertarianism is widely used to justify indifference and inaction in addressing poverty, global warming and the world's many other problems."

    Wow, talk about over-broad generalizations. I know plenty of other libertarians who are very concerned with poverty, the environment, and the world' many other problems.

    You also wrote: "Oh, and libertarianism makes you stupid."

    Okay, so I'm stupid. I don't think that we have any further reason to discuss anything -- if I have been made "stupid" by liberarianism. You don't truly want to have discussions with stupid people.

    Have a blessed life.
  • WaveTossed
    Thanks for your answer. What sorts of science do you study, practice, or teach? Just curious.

    Myself, I majored in mathematics in college and I've done computer mainframe application programming for 12 years. I don't know if writing computer programs constitutes "science" or not. It's pretty technical, however.
  • squeaky
    The irony of your bringing Biblical references about being willfully ignorant is that the knife cuts both ways. You refuse to look at the evidence, and when asked to produce scientific evidence in a discussion about science, you say you don't have time to do so. You say you don't have time to truly investigate or understand the science and yet you have a strong opinion about it. And then you use a Bible reference to say that those who know the most about these issues are willfully ignorant?

    This is the fourth time I am going to ask this question. Please answer it this time.

    If someone told you that the Bible was full of worthless contradictions, and that person had never read the Bible, what would your response be?

    Do have a happy Easter!
  • squeaky
    I'm responding here because the other conversation is too compressed to continue in that thread.

    The post you referenced was almost entirely an attack on Al Gore, not on the science itself. I share your concern about someone losing a job because they question climate change, but justintime indicated the opposite events in many of his posts. The Bush Administration performed a well-documented cover-up on the findings of climate scientists for the purposes of throwing doubt on their findings. Does that bother you as well?
  • squeaky
    OK--you're not helping...
  • squeaky
    I informed you of phrases that I, as a scientist, find disrespectful. It wasn't a refusal to consider other views, it was an honest attempt to help you understand how scientists perceive such rhetoric. If you asked me to stop using rhetoric that was disrespectful to your experience, I would stop. I'm sorry if I didn't explain that clearly enough, but I hope you understand now.
  • justintime
    Of course not, Wave Tossed.
    My comment is directed at Michael R. Fox, not you.
    If you've read Michael R. Fox and you agree with him and the label fits, go ahead and wear it.
    But be prepared to defend it.
    We do not dismiss your comments out of hand.
    Haven't you noticed?

    I will say that I've found libertarianism to be a dogmatic, simplistic belief system, remarkably devoid of careful, reasonable thinking and often at odds with scientific methods, facts and findings.
    Libertarianism is widely used to justify indifference and inaction in addressing poverty, global warming and the world's many other problems.

    In any event, serious debate about global warming is critically necessary when unqualified individuals, like Michael R. Fox attack the science of global climate change with misinformation.
  • justintime
    Oh, and libertarianism makes you stupid.
  • WaveTossed
    "he's a libertarian"

    Is that so horrible? I'm also a libertarian. So I suppose that now you can dismiss ALL of my comments on this issue as being "against all serious attempts to address global warming." Just apply a label and then it gets so simple -- once the label has been applied, no further serious debate is necessary.
  • WaveTossed
    Read this website.

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b74def...

    Don't you see that you are doing the exact same things that you accuse the "climate change deniers" of doing. You say that you have a "boatload of experience with people who use phrases like that, and not one of them has shown much respect for science. Therefore, in my ears, those phrases are very dismissive and disrespectful, as well as incredibly ignorant about what science is and what scientists do."

    It seems now that you are lumping myself and other global-warming moderates/questioners with the "cimate change deniers" who have not "shown much respect for science" and who therefore use phrases that are "very dismissive and disrespectful, as well as incredibly ignorant about what science is and what scientists do."

    By using these phrases "dismissive" and "disrpectful" and "incredibly ignorant," you are doing just what you are accusing them -- and me -- of doing.

    From the article I cited: "The calls for a debate on global warming are empty. There has been little debate and instead personal attacks, threats, loss of funding, calls for speech suppression, and even Nuremburg Trials."

    I agree with this artcle. All Dr. Matthew Fox is doing is raising questions, not taking any sides. However, given the tenor of much of the discussion over here, I'm sure that many will dismiss Dr. Fox's article of being "dismissive" and "disrpectful" and "incredibly ignorant."

    This refusal to allow for any alternative views, dismissing them all as "incredibly ignorant" is so similar to those on the Gay marriage debate who keep claiming that the Bible "speaks clearly against Gay marriage" when the Bible isn't clear on this subject at all -- and the Gospels never even mention this issue.
  • hammerud
    Squeaky -- I'm not going to spend time doing that. Google it or read
    some books on it. The info is out there and easily accessible. I gave
    some facts from probability science for the evolution thing. Facts
    generally mean nothing to those who are committed to a position. The
    phrase "willful ignorance" in Peter regarding some of these issues is
    significant. "Willful ignorance" trumps facts -- and I'm definitely
    not referring to you. I sense you have a kind heart and an open mind,
    not that you would end up agreeing with me.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008