$66bn ends world poverty; the Great Divergence; bashing BAE and the China-bashers; the UK and Africa; talk v action on greenhouse gases; ultra-low tech lighting: links I liked
How much would it cost to eradicate (that’s right – not halve, but end) world poverty? “If we could accurately and directly supplement the income of each poor person in the world to bring his or her daily income up to $1.25, it would have cost $96 billion in 2005. But by 2010, as the number of poor people fell, that cost had dropped to $66 billion.” Charles Kenny discusses his findings here.
Dani Rodrik discusses the ‘great divergence’ since 1990 between growth in developing and developed countries (see graph)
“You are not setting up a charity trust, or a personal or a private foundation, or some kind of outward branch for great super-duper positive campaigns that BAE will do to win friends in nice places, and gain influence in nice places – you are paying a fine, a punishment.” BAE Systems gets a well-earned kicking in the House of Commons for dragging its feet over a £29.5m fine it was ordered to pay the people of Tanzania in February 2010.
Voice of America’s China-in-Africa bashing gets bashed in turn by someone who actually knows about the subject
Was David Cameron’s truncated trip to Africa a sign of a new, more balanced UK-African relationship?
‘Developing countries, whether by intention or not, have been critical participants in reducing the carbon load. Furthermore, poor countries have borne their fair portion of global carbon alleviation expenditures.’ CGD’s David Wheeler shows that poor countries have been doing climate change mitigation all along – hope the UN negotiations on burden sharing have taken notice.
Illuminate your windowless shack (during the daytime at least) with nothing more than an empty plastic bottle and some bleach and water. Doesn’t get more low tech than this (except windows, maybe)…. [h/t John Magrath]