This is all great but where are the details. What are the specific things that governments and individuals can do to alleviate poverty and make a world that is fairer for all? Reading the authors of the article I'm led to think maybe the idea is to donate substantial sums of money to Oxfam, World Vision, Amnesty International, CARE, PLAN and Greenpeace.

Would that be money well spent? What have been the successes so far? What are their budgets and what fraction of their budgets goes to useful causes that have made a difference?

"Governments must reduce the volatility in energy prices, food prices and the financial markets by ensuring sensible regulation, adequate protection for the rights of poor and vulnerable people, and long-term environmental sustainability." - - - That is a gigantic, gigantic, incredibly huge project, but it gets listed here as if all we need to do is make a phone call. Where are the specific proposals for making these things happen?

"Governments must show decisive leadership to build a global economy that is green and where better lives and livelihoods for all is more important than a system that rewards a privileged few." - - - How?

Listed as authors of the article:

Australian NGO Chiefs:
Andrew Hewett, Executive Director, Oxfam Australia
Tim Costello, Chief Executive, World Vision Australia
Claire Mallinson, National Director, Amnesty International Australia
Dr Julia Newton-Howes, Chief Executive Officer, CARE Australia
Ian Wishart, National Executive Director, PLAN Australia
Steve Shallhorn, Chief Executive Officer, Greenpeace Australia

United, they declare: “This is not just about money. It is about sustained attention, international collaboration and clear political will to tackle big issues.”

United, they list big issues.

United, they deliberately avoid the biggest issue of all – population pressure and its continuing growth in areas of the most deprived.

United, they deliberately avoid the second-biggest issue – the prevention of women in those areas from accessing the rights and the means to control their own fertility.

United, they deliberately avoid even discussing limits to the capacity of environmental resources to cope with even rudimentary human needs on the scale of present numbers.

Maybe they are united in feeling good about being able to bypass these essentials – that it is “the problem of someone else”.

If that is so, how better is their activity than that of shore-line scavengers - collectors of flotsam from never-ending tragedies of human shipwreck

In the absence of real action on the part of governments (who recieve far more from poor countries on interest earned then they give back in aid) it is left to private organisations such as these to attempt to address some of the issues raised by Colinsett.

"United, they deliberately avoid the biggest issue of all – population pressure and its continuing growth in areas of the most deprived."

- some groups do focus on short term disaster relief (such as MSF), but sustainable development is an increasing concern that requires a greater investment and global refocus beyond the scope of these organisations largely reliant on private donations.

"United, they deliberately avoid the second-biggest issue – the prevention of women in those areas from accessing the rights and the means to control their own fertility."

- Access to appropriate reproduction technology is key to sustainable development. It is hampered by inadequate funding among poorer countries and cultural issues specific to some regions. sitting on your arse complaining that someone doesn't do something about it acheives nothing.

"United, they deliberately avoid even discussing limits to the capacity of environmental resources to cope with even rudimentary human needs on the scale of present numbers."

- rudimentry human needs? The level of consumption among us in the 'west' is far far above rudimentry.

Not sure about this, but i've heard it said that the world can sustain 9 billion people on current food production - if we eat the calorie intake of the average citizen of Bangladesh. While population management is vital, a callous approach towards those who are suffering from those bloated with overindulgence is a bit rich.

Collective computer modeling has produced these hypothetical set pieces on the political chess board! How sad say the modelers! How true say the man made global warming deniers! As these political global warming prophets of doom only stray into common observations after economic distress and factual occurrences. Now are these collective thought bubbles driven and funded by government or a result of industries empirically practiced results.

* Access to appropriate reproduction technology is key to sustainable development. It is hampered by inadequate funding among poorer countries and cultural issues specific to some regions. sitting on your arse complaining that someone doesn't do something about it acheives nothing.*

McFly, I remind you that quite good progress was being made in places
like sub Saharan Africa, when along came the Bush regime, with
Vatican lobbyists and other religious extremists blowing in their
ear, so much good work was cancelled and abstinence was the new
solution, according to them. Anyone who even mentioned abortion
had any funding cut off immediately, so many clinics closed etc.

You are quite correct, sadly I cannot get rid of the pope or even
get rid of the Bush regime. All I can do is express my disgust,
that Western Govts are too lilly livered to put both the above in
their place and start giving women in the third world, what women
in the first world take for granted, ie. proper family planning.

Just shipping more boat loads of food to Africa, is not going to
solve anything.

McFly I agree with your statement: “a callous approach towards those who are suffering from those bloated with overindulgence is a bit rich.”

It is the bloated overindulgence of their individual mission, the unwillingness to plea for help from Governments or elsewhere in order to address the causes giving rise to the horrendous problems they attend to, by Medicines Sans Frontiers and other ambulance-chasers, that raise my ire.

I find it extremely callous of them to neglect to do so. They carry on with their good works in total disregard for the 1994 Cairo Conference which determined an effective (if it were to be implemented) plan for action to address the fundamental issues giving rise to the problems. There are other NGOs which do address them (Bill Ryerson’s radio initiatives among them) to greater effect; but they receive little media attention.

It is way beyond time that the authors of the article, and the organizations they represent, stopped “sitting on their arses” in silence about the underlying cause of the problems they individually work at. The people whose concerns they are striving for have every right to eventual equality with ourselves in relation to opportunity for rudimentary human needs – and I would wish that such is eventually achieved. How rudimentary? – it’s a bit rich to expect 6.7 billion people, even at Bangladeshi standards, to be maintained by the earth’s environment. If ever 9 billion is reached it will be of very temporary duration. In the meantime, the silence of the authors is abominable.