The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rio+20 and a Green Economy > Comments

Rio+20 and a Green Economy : Comments

By Shenggen Fan, published 14/6/2012

Ensuring food and nutrition security for the poor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 14
  9. 15
  10. 16
  11. All
Atman and Curmudgeon

Normally I’d agree with many of your points, but this article doesn’t seem to be from the loopy green fringe. Pricing costs and benefits is a standard economic response to externalities. “Promote innovations in biological sciences, food technologies, and natural resource use ” surely includes technologies such as the green revolution and biotech, including GM. “Ensuring open trade” is more likely to be opposed than supported by the anti-globalisation zealots.

The 0.7% target is for total aid spending, not the UN budget

Or am I missing something?
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 14 June 2012 3:32:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The UN is not the warm and cuddley organisation it pretends to be.They want the New World Order so they can have total control.Drastic population reductions are high on their agenda.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 14 June 2012 5:16:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a great idea for increasing food production: since plants love carbon dioxide, why don't we do our best to add as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as we possibly can?

What do you mean, 'someone's already thought of that'?
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 14 June 2012 5:23:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reads like a perfectly sound and sensible article to me, with profoundly sensible and balanced objectives - excepting perhaps to the knockitdown, plough it up, hate the environment lobby - the same people who want to fish our oceans to destruction and pollute the planet to asphyxiation in their mindless egotistical pursuit of 'development' and a plasma TV in every home.

Those who do not appreciate the significance and value of biodiversity should stick to their knitting.

As for UN knockers, what other organisation would be better placed to set forth effective and manageable policies to ensure the future comfortable and affordable sustainability of our voracious species on this fragile planet? Ms Gillard and Co? The United Federation of Underwater Basket Weavers?

More power to the IFPRI in my book, and may they live long and prosper.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 14 June 2012 6:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading articles like this sets my teeth on edge.

So many words.

So little meaning.

"In [a green] economy, the pursuit of growth is reconciled with sustainable development through increased resource-use efficiency, with the ultimate objective of simultaneously promoting economic development, environmental protection, and social welfare."

Impressive-sounding words. Yet nowhere in the article does the author give the faintest hint as to how this might be achieved in practical terms. Nowhere are any problems or impediments described, or even alluded to. But more importantly, there isn't even a half-hearted attempt to describe the means by which any of this might possibly come about.

"...eight policy actions are recommended"

To whom are they addressed? Do the report's authors actually live in the same world that we do?

They clearly don't, as they are based in Washington D.C., the world's capital for bludgers, hangers-on and gravy-trainers.

Who paid for this, I wonder. And are they impressed with its earth-shattering recommendations?

"Integrate food and nutrition security into sustainable development"

That is a goal, not an objective. Let alone a strategy, a plan or a tactic. And not a hint of "how".

"Establish social protection systems to protect the poor when food prices go up"

Who will do this, and with whose money? Presumably it will be funded by the farmers, whose crops will - apparently - suddenly become very scarce and extremely desirable.

"Identify new indicators to evaluate impacts and policy implications of a green economy"

Ummm... that's a good one. Presumably the current "indicators" are insufficient to evaluate the impacts. Yet the author is quite happy to witter on about policies, despite confessing that no-one has the tools to evaluate their efficacy.

So is it possible that I'm deep-down envious that these folks have a cushy job on the public's tab, and can get away with publishing meaningless dross like this?

Nah, don't think so. I have at least a modicum of self-respect.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 14 June 2012 7:27:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, you said

“Promote innovations in biological sciences, food technologies, and natural resource use ” surely includes technologies such as the green revolution and biotech, including GM.

No, it doesn't, it considers synthetic biology, geo-engineering, genetic modification, nuclear energy and nanotechnology as high risk industries to be restricted."Open trade" is about the FREE transferral of technologies to developing countries through the UN without the normal commercial processes operating. See paragraph 31
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 14 June 2012 9:29:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 14
  9. 15
  10. 16
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy