- + Tracy Barret voted on the debate Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ll Blynch edited the debate Are London Underground staff justified in their strike action?
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Loretta voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Golmindalin joined Debatewise
- + Crissieboy joined Debatewise
- + Thebabeofbengal edited the debate Are women superior to men?
- + Arnavnarian joined Debatewise
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Explonential joined Central London Debating Society
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Plally7 edited the debate Will mankind make it to the next century?
IS IT ACCEPTABLE THAT THE £1.5BN PLEDGED TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE BY THE UK WILL COME MAINLY FROM EXISTING OVERSEAS AID FUNDS?
Governments have promised to put aside new money to fight climate change. Activists have stated that they want all money put aside for climate change to be new and not just old money that has been shifted around. But, with governments trying to save money, it is more likely that the money used to fight climate change will be diverted from other departments.
Is it acceptable that the £1.5bn pledged to fight climate change by the UK will come mainly from existing overseas aid funds?
No, because... Diverting money from existing overseas funds towards tackling climate change will have a negative effect on the world's poor
Charity begins at home. The U.K is concerned more about her own poor than that of the entire globe.
Most programs to alleviate poverty revolve around industrialisation/industrialization and aggravate the climate situation. Either end poverty by 2010 and its less notorious counterparts figure out eco-friendly ways of tackling poverty, in the long term balking all the consequences of their current speedy revival tactics or funds to their mission need be curtailed for larger matters such as climate change.
Flooding and earthquakes(resulting from climate change) will kill a lot more poor people than less funds to raise farting cows, work in polluting factories with terrible human rights' conditions and run carbon-exhaust rickshaws.
If exisiting money is diverted towards tackling climate chnage then the world's poorest people will suffer.
Bill Gate's is particuarly concerned about the effect that this would have on healthcare in poorer countries. Huge amounts of money are needed to tackle widespread diseases such as HIV/AIDs and Malaria. Diverting money away from tackling these diseases would have a huge impact. The United States has pledge $100 billion to help poorer nations deal with the problem of climate change. But, how much of this money would be new? He states: ""If just 1 percent of the $100 billion goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases."
Climate change is going to have more of an impact on poorer countries, for example, flooding in Bangladesh, tsunames in Indonesia. While putting money aside for climate change is a good idea, the money should be diverted away from other important issues. Poorer nations need money to improve education, sanitation and overall living standards of people.
Vote on this point: Diverting money from existing overseas funds towards tackling climate change will have a negative effect on the world's poor
See history of changes to this point
Is it acceptable that the £1.5bn pledged to fight climate change by the UK will come mainly from existing overseas aid funds?
No, because... New money should be pledged otherwise a climate deal could collapse
Money is being diverted towards climate change funds from other less important perhaps damaging(in the case of most end-poverty missions that charge towards industrialization and exploitation of labour) funds.
Where will this 'new' money come from. Isn't the premise to exhaust the budget in different sectors/funds and that the budget can/should be floated/diverted from one area to another?
For governments' to consider using existing money to tackle climate change is an insult to the world's poor. They are already suffering from the effects of climate change.
According to Oxfam around 26 million people have already been displaced by the effects of climate change. The charity have called on European governments to provide 35 billion Euro's of new money every year to help poorer nations combat climate change.
Vote on this point: New money should be pledged otherwise a climate deal could collapse
See history of changes to this point
Vote on this debate: Is it acceptable that the £1.5bn pledged to fight climate change by the UK will come mainly from existing overseas aid funds?
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Point 1. Diverting money from existing overseas funds towards tackling climate change will have a negative effect on the world's poor
If exisiting money is diverted towards tackling climate chnage then the world's poorest people will suffer.
Charity begins at home. The U.K is concerned more about her own poor than that of the entire globe.
Most programs to alleviate poverty revolve around industrialisation/industrialization and aggravate the climate situation. Either end poverty by 2010 and its less notorious counterparts figure out eco-friendly ways of tackling poverty, in the long term balking all the consequences of their current speedy revival tactics or funds to their mission need be curtailed for larger matters such as climate change.
Flooding and earthquakes(resulting from climate change) will kill a lot more poor people than less funds to raise farting cows, work in polluting factories with terrible human rights' conditions and run carbon-exhaust rickshaws.
Point 2. New money should be pledged otherwise a climate deal could collapse
For governments' to consider using existing money to tackle climate change is an insult to the world's poor. They are already suffering from the effects of climate change.
According to Oxfam around 26 million people have already been displaced by the effects of climate change. The charity have called on European governments to provide 35 billion Euro's of new money every year to help poorer nations combat climate change.
Money is being diverted towards climate change funds from other less important perhaps damaging(in the case of most end-poverty missions that charge towards industrialization and exploitation of labour) funds.
Where will this 'new' money come from. Isn't the premise to exhaust the budget in different sectors/funds and that the budget can/should be floated/diverted from one area to another?