Over the last few years, our glorious

world has devolved into one where

rational thoughts became the weapons
of irrational minds

In early January 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. This seemingly small
statements is actually deadly serious and underlies the direction and funding
alogorithmss of the United Nations for the year. It means the difference between
between hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions of dollars in the long run, and no

inflexible.
doubt far more valuable lives. But UN processes are not

With enough political pressure, we can

overcame this ignorant shame.
Historically, The UN has always prioritized the fight against global as its primary
concern. There is no that this is the issues that underlie that we, the great majority
consensus, as according a study conducted by the BBC international, Is the worlds
communities greatest concern.

Following the pathetic conclusion of the Copenhagen accord, it was in fact Bo do Bier,
the UN’s chief climate change official, who cautioned that some measures aimed at
countering climate change could also be harmful, after finding that some projects for the
United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) had violated human rights.

There are a number of prominent examples. Local populations are sometimes displaced
to clear land for tree-planting projects intended to offset emissions from power plants in
western countries, while investments in crop-based biofuels have had disasterous
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 effectively do both. The science and empiral 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 western liberal representative
democracy we are each responsible to be a part of this debate. Our nation expects us to
form the right opinion, since each of us are at the doorstep of our voting age, when our
rights under democratic suffrage to determine the course of Australians political future,
and though it, manipulate the world stage place us in such a critical position in forming
our young political minds.

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. They fear that, without this guarantee, when the rich
states have to start providing huge sums of climate finance under the treaty, 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
which are central to its funding algorithms are so very relevant. The differences run up
10’s of billions of dollars.

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 before Copenhagen.

Glasses On-

If more aid is not on the table, no deal is possible

Glasses off-

Intoned Gordon Brown of the UK, supported by Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Hillary
Clinton of the US.

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 activists.

They clearly are not.

In lieu of the disgraceful outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, climate change
funds and poverty reduction funds that flow through the United Nations are in direct
competition

-Wear Wig-
"Even the poorest countries are aware that if the money is coming from future aid
commitments, it's forcing them to choose between building flood defenses and sea
walls, and building schools and hospitals," – Remove Wig- said Oxfam's Robert
Bailey. -Wear Wig- "And that's not a trade-off that's going to be acceptable. –
Remove Wig-

In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been forced to cut services
because of insufficient funding [48]. 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.

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 political
implications of that.

Poverty directly effects more humans than climate change could. 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. 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 it
is not as likely to have as significant of an effect as poverty already has around the
world..

Effect of climate change is too unclear to prioritize it. It is not clear that global climate
change will have as negative an effect on the world's people as global poverty already is
having. While it is possible that it will reach a similar level of destructiveness, the UN
should not prioritize it over poverty based merely on conjecture.

Poverty is 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. Because it is more important to prioritize problems that are
most immediate to humans, the United Nations should prioritize addressing poverty over
climate change, at least for now.

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. The Lancet report details at length how warmer temperatures will lead to so-
called tropical diseases such as malaria moving northwards and to higher altitudes. [say
satirically: and I quote: “a 10% increase in the incident of diarreogh amongst aboriginal
Australians”….But this 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 esperate
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). And, of course, all
efforts by the UN to combat climate change may do nothing to prevent its eventual
occurrence. Because poverty reduction entails lower risks and more direct bang-for-buck,
the UN should prioritize it over climate change.

Climate change may be inevitable, while poverty can be stopped. Climate change is
almost certain to occur, considering current and projected emissions level and the general
trends in temperature increases and glacial melt. In addition, it seems likely that, even if
emissions rates are slowed, all available fossil fuels will eventually be burned and the
contained carbon released into the atmosphere. Therefore, even if climate change were
the –Air Quotes- "greater crisis" –Air Quotes-, it is irrelevant because nothing can be
done to stop it. 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.

Any strategy has to protect the capacity of poor countries to eradicate poverty.

We live in a time where humanity is confronted by a host of serious, growing, intractable

problems with global significance.

When it cannot do both, the United Nations should prioritize combating global poverty
over 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.