Posted by
Catmman on Friday, August 08, 2008 4:46:21 PM
Her research showed that 140 million malnourished children live in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Eighty per cent of these children could be provided with essential vitamins and minerals for a mere $60-million a year, $300-million for five years. (Malnourished children under two years of age require vitamin A; malnourished infants under six months of age require therapeutic zinc.) On an annual basis, these simple nutrients would return benefits (fewer deaths, better health, higher future incomes) of more than $1-billion.
The Consensus adjudicators named the Doha round of trade negotiations as the second-best investment that the world - or anyone in it - could make. In their final report, released weeks before the Doha round negotiations collapsed, they calculated that "a realistic Doha agreement" could increase global income by $3-trillion a year, $2.5-trillion of which would go to the developing world. For minimal adjustment costs, they said, the world would reap "exceptionally large benefits."
The Consensus judges returned to investment on nutrition - for adults in Africa, Asia and Europe this time - in determining the third-best investment. More than two billion people suffer from iron deficiency. Iodized salt would protect all of these people against goiter. The cost: $19-million a year, $95-million for five years. The return on investment: $9 in benefits for every dollar invested. Investment in tuberculosis treatment would save a million lives and return $30 for every dollar. Investment in heart disease treatment would avert 300,000 deaths and return $25 in benefits for every dollar.
Investment in global warming, on the other hand, would return only 90 cents in benefits for every dollar. The judges concluded that it would be much less productive than deworming children, expanding DDT spraying in parts of the world cursed by malaria and building and staffing more schools - especially, from a cost-benefit perspective, schools for girls.
This is an interesting article. One should note Al Gore is spending $300M over a similar time period as could be beneficial for Africa. Al Gore is spending all of that money simply on re-educating, er, educating the "public" about the dangers of "climate change". For that same amount of money, Al Gore could feed and nourish 140 million African children over a five year time period - and expect a much more beneficial impact over time as explained above.
One of those children who would perhaps find the solution to Al Gore's issue?
This is why I honestly believe "cliumate change/global warming" is about nothing more than money. If helping people were the real motive we wouldn't be wasting such exhobitant sums of cash on a non-existant threat.
I believe so. This article shows so.
What say you Al Gore?