Prioritizing Funding: AIDS or Global Warming?
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 07. 7.07
What's a group like the G8 to do when it is forced to weigh competing funding requests for two critical, equally weighty issues such as AIDS prevention and global warming? That is the question it must now face as it mulls redirecting billions of dollars of funding currently targeted towards fighting AIDS to tackle climate change within the next few years.
Members of the G8 have been "under pressure" in recent weeks to clarify their pledge of $60 billion for combating AIDS at last month's Heiligendamm summit, according to Jon Liden, a spokesman for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Ban Ki Moon, the U.N. secretary-general, criticized rich nations for the "lack of significant increases in official development assistance since 2004" and urged them to spend more on assistance to developing countries.
Liden, citing the recent release of several highly publicized reports on global warming, acknowledged that the Global Fund "is not naive about what (the increased importance of) global warming will do to AIDS funding in a few years' time," adding that the "huge momentum" behind its funding "cannot last for ever." Indeed, that time may be arriving sooner than even Liden anticipated: Oxfam and Data, two development assistance groups, have attacked the G8's pledge as an "act of deception," arguing that under the nations' current budgets, the $60 billion figure would mean only $3 billion in new funding by 2010.
Yet what is the G8 to do? Both AIDS prevention and global warming are arguably some of the most pressing issues we face today and in the near future so making a decision as to whether to fund one over the other is bound to raise a lot of questions and concerns. There are valid arguments that could be made on either side to defend one position over another.
In an ideal world, the industrialized nations would pledge enough money to substantively fund both but, given the current state of affairs, that is not likely to happen any time soon.
Via ::The Financial Times: Aids cash could be switched to climate change fight (newspaper)
See also: ::People and Planet: UK Students Tackling Poverty, Human Rights and Environmental Issues, ::G8 Summit: US to "Seriously Consider" European Climate Pact, ::G8 Nations Hit Brick Wall On Climate
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Global Warming Opens Northwest Passage
- Doubting Renewable Energy
- 3 Green Pre-Conditions for a Big Three Bailout
- Using the "Flash" from Lightning To Predict Deadly Floods
People who are dying now pitted against people who may die in the future...Is this a trick question?
Except in the scramble for raw cash, these two laudable causes don't have to be in conflict with each other. AIDS requires medication and public education, and global warming requires law and regulation to limit carbon emissions.
Global warming activists don't really have huge hands out for research funding, because all the science has been settled on. They have their hands out to get the necessary carbon-reduction schemes implemented by the world's governments. Luckily, with global warming, unlike AIDS, we know what the cure is and how to do it.
They might as well spend the money they've promised to fight HIV on global warming--they're not spending much of it on fighting HIV! They are firm believers in recycling--promises of money.
The billions they've promised to Africa, to rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, to a thousand other causes are clawed back when the public attention has moved on and re-promised to something new.
They do the same thing to government budgets all the time.
But don't let them tell you they don't have enough money to do both. It's only a question of priorities.
This is tricky. Personally, as an African (living in the USA), I've come into contact with people with the disease. It really depends on how they spend it. To be honest, the way they're battling aids & poverty isn't really effective. They waste the money. U could say that they're actually helping sustain it. You can't just hand out cash and have pharmaceutical companies doubling/tripling their drug prices just so they make more profits off the sale of drugs. They should use the money to teach the people skills and invest in Africa to provide job opportunities for the people. When the people are doing well u'll notice poverty and disease will begin to decrease.
There is already a cure for AIDS and HIV. It's called not having sex.
....not having sex? Then the world will be ruled by...clones? There's also another cure for AIDS, making human nature perfect. You work on that please, I'm too busy.
"There is already a cure for AIDS and HIV. It's called not having sex."
I'm sorry, I must have a really horrible sense of humour because I find that just tactless. I believe that's prevention not a cure.
I know I must sound like such a prude but the issue of AIDS should not be taken so lightly. While we're trying to sustain the environment for future generations, perhaps we should also worry about actually having the future generations. From the looks of it (i.e Africa), AIDS/HIV has the capabiity to wipe out entire generations. Not to mention growing conflicts in Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc.
I'm glad that people are staying informed, I'm just really worried that Global Warming is going to become the only issue that people see as relevant. It seems to be the character of Western Nations to be less than selfless when it comes to humanity. While fighting Global Warming will help us develop, it does nothing for the rest of the world if it's in such a state that its ability to produce future generations is at risk. I doubt Africa can care for its future generations when it's busy thinking about the survival of its present one.
Both issues are fakes and just another way of government exerting control through fear.
Many will disagree with this statement but it is a fact nevertheless.
I have known personally 3 HIV sufferers and they only became ill after AZT
watch this video !
http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1264376#i
And as for global warming - cooling is no the new warming!!