Over the last few years, society has devolved into one where rational thoughts

became the weapons of irrational minds.

Earlier this year the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon identified his priorities for 2010
during an address to the UN General Assembly. He highlighted a priority focus on
Climate Change, rather than the historical focus on combating global poverty. This
annual statement is a precursor for the general direction and funding algorithms of
the UN, It will mean the difference between hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions
of dollars in the long run, and no doubt far more valuable lives. But UN processes
are not inflexible. With political pressure, this may well be revoked.

Yvo de Bier, the Dutch chief climate change official cautioned that measures aimed at
countering climate change could be harmful to the worlds poor, after finding that some
projects for the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) had violated
human rights. This is in no way acceptable.

There are a number of prominent examples. Local populations in developing nations are
sometimes displaced [ridicule]to clear land for tree-planting projects[ridicule]. This is
intended to offset emissions from power plants in [annoyed]western countries[annoyed].
Similarly investments in crop-based biofuels have had disastrous implications of the
availability of food.

The CDM was set up under the Kyoto protocol to allow industrialized nations to take
stake in emission-reduction projects in poor nations and trade them to meet part of their
emission reduction targets.

The United Nations needs to prioritize the imminent crisis of global poverty over the
threat of climate change. It cannot do both effectively. The science and empirical
evidence behind climate change in overwhelming, but the science cannot over-ride the
political and economic debate that must take place. As citizens of a representative
democracy we are each responsible to be a part of this debate. Our nation expects us to
form the an informed and up to date opinion.

We are each at the doorstep of the voting age, when we will begin to play a more direct
role in Australians future and through Australias relatively influential position in the
world and the United Nation, the world stage. Issues of international governance are
equally important to us then whether [ridicule] we care about some pipe that goes under
ground [ridicule] (NE pipeline)

The deal-breaker at Copenhagen was the conflict between the rich and poor countries
over the ‘additionality’ of funding for relief over environmental concerns overriding
concerns over the wellbeing of their people. ‘Additionally’ means that finance provided
to help developing countries deal with climate change is entirely on top of the aid sums
they receive from the rich West to help them with their development – with agriculture,
poverty relief, health and education. Oxfam's Robert Bailey said that “poor countries fear
that, without this guarantee, when the rich states have to start providing huge sums of
climate finance under a possible Mexico treaty in years to come, they will simply divert
their aid flows, and that money that once went to schools and hospitals will be switched,
for example, to wind farms. That is why the United Nations prioritizations are so very
relevant. And so is our place in this current issue. The seriously disenfranchised should
not have to compete for funds with things like algae. [algae] Algae.

Increasing aid for the poor that are disenfranchised by climate change efforts was
suggested by environmental groups like Green Peace and the WWF at Copenhagen.
This became the mantra among Western leaders like Gordon Brown, Nicholas
Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton. But they were talking to Green activists, not developing
countries, and still viewing climate change through a rich country lens. They had
bought the green line that the world’s poor were on the same side as the
environmental activists.

They clearly are not.

-Wear Wig-

In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been forced to cut services
because of insufficient funding. It has received barely a quarter of the total it needs for
the 09/10 financial year.

For developing countries, climate change and other environmental strategies that retard
economic development are unacceptable. They scored this into UN orthodoxy at the Rio
Earth summit in 1992. They executed the principle when they emasculated the Kyoto
Protocol by insisting only rich countries cut emissions.

7:30 minutes

The failure at Copenhagen was not the result of greater influence of developing countries.
It was a failure, yet again, of green activists and environmental officials in rich countries
to understand the position of developing countries and the political implications of their
stance.

Lets take a look at the arguments:

Poverty directly effects more humans than climate change could and is more
urgent.. Global poverty plagues nearly half of the world's population, where it is the
cause of extreme suffering, malnutrition, and even death. Global climate change,
conversely, may not have such a substantially negative effect on the world's population,
standards of living, health, and survival. It is far more likely to simply force humans and
societies to adapt. Other issues of greater importance carry the consequence of.. death.
You cannot adapt to death. It will certainly cause major problems around the world, and
increased suffering for some, but climate is not as likely to have as significant of an effect
as poverty already has around the world.
Poverty is also a more urgent priority than climate change. Global poverty is having
an extremely deleterious impact now, whereas climate change only might have a
comparably negative impact in the future.

Poverty spreads diseases more than climate change could. Philip Stevens, a physician
and journalist in publication titled: "Poverty: The Real Threat to Health". May 15, 2009
wrote: -Wear Moustache- "the relationship between climate and disease is weaker than
claimed. Earlier, the CSIRO detailed at length how[say satirically] quote: “a 10%
increase in the incident of diarreogh amongst aboriginal Australians” They also
mentioned that there would be more water on our beaches and bays. Seriously, water on
our beaches, man up Australia, nobody cares. With a xenophobia inciting conclusion to
their report on how Australia would be able to welcome more refugees, the report on the
expected effects of climate change on Australia ended. ….But their arguments on the
health related aspects of Climate Change ignores the vast range of human and ecological
factors that surround disease. The same report which forms the basis for most of the
health related issues of climate change has recently been denounced in parallel to the
IPCC – the UN’s bible on climate issue, from that shameful Himalayan glacier story. But
that is not to denounce the UN as a whole for its bureaucratic flaws and operational
redundancies in regards to climate governance. The UN remains the preeminent
international body for climate governance. Over the last twenty years the institution has
amassed unparalleled knowledge and expertise which should not be rebuffed. Sadly, it
does seem that desperate researchers thrive on alarmist theories as they vie for funding.
The implications are becoming increasingly apparent.

UN mission: Is the UN's mission better for fighting poverty or climate change?

UN is more obligated to the poor and human welfare than climate. The United
Nations, as an organization, is more bound to human welfare than to the environment.
Considering that poverty is currently, and for the foreseeable future, the greatest road-
block to human welfare, the UN should continue to prioritize this field of work over other
endeavors such as solving climate change. And, when efforts to fight climate change may
worsen poverty, the UN should prioritize the former.

The UN has a special responsibility to the poor. The United Nations is a body whose
greatest impact has been helping the poor, mitigating conflict, and protecting innocent
civilians during conflict. In general, its mission has evolved to be more of a humanitarian
organization than a global governance body. It should make an effort to live up to this
mission by prioritizing poverty over climate change, when the two come into conflict.

Economics: Can the UN have a greater impact on poverty than climate change?

UN money will go further in fighting poverty than climate change. UN money can go
straight to the poor in the form of aid, directly addressing a clear human need. Money that
goes toward the problem of climate change, does not have such a direct return-on-human-
need as the effects on human needs are very indirect (protecting humans from changes in
temperature and the possibility of negative effects in the future).. Because poverty
reduction entails lower risks and more direct bang-for-buck, the UN should prioritize it
over climate change.

It is better that the UN focus its attention and limited resources on issues it can affect,
such as poverty, where there is a bigger bang-for-buck and lower risks of wasting trillions
of dollars on a lost cause.

Politics: Is poverty reduction more politically feasible than fighting climate change?

India's objections in 2009 to mandatory carbon emission targets are a good example of
the conflict between the climate and human welfare, where it argued that meeting these
targets would impair its development and poverty reduction efforts. Clearly, there are
times when environmental aims have economic costs, and where the UN must prioritize
poverty reduction or climate change. Poverty reduction is the international communities .
We have enough humanity to not demand of our neighbors and friends to sacrifice the
economic well being, health, and even survival of their people.

Security: Which is a greater priority for international security?

Poverty is a greater threat to peace than climate change. Global poverty is the direct cause
of illiteracy, misunderstandings, discontentment, tensions, and conflict. It creates the
conditions for revolutions, guerrilla warfare, gang warfare, desperation among
exacerbated governments, and nodes of tension that can lead to both civil war and
international military confrontations. It is not clear that climate change could have such a
negative effect on global stability and peace. The only way that climate change could
have such impacts is by simply worsening poverty and the cycle of violence and conflict
that result. Yet, systemic poverty is the main culprit of international insecurity, and
should be prioritized by the UN for this reason.

Zealots have short life spans when the cost and impracticality of what they urge becomes
apparent. Only now are the costs of their climate change plans becoming apparent. If
Copenhagen was not a climate change epiphany for Western leaders, they will never be
able to envisage a practical global strategy to reduce climate change.

Do not let the stupid sheep that constitutes the world outside out class room pressure
leaders towards more radical pursuits. In tandem with their Machiavellian self interests,
the combination, as demonstrated in Copenhagen, was and will be destined for only one
station aboard the fail train. Failure.

The United Nations should prioritize combating global poverty over combating climate
change. Remember what that environmental eco-hero Captain Planet’s catch phrase is,
and you’ll know that sometimes you shoulnd’t fight on the planets size.