Elizabeth Ebert

11/25/14
Hon 201
Final Paper

Recently, the Chicago-World Development Foundation received

a $50 million donation from a philanthropist who wants to promote
innovation in many of the prominent issues facing the world today.
There were many applicants but now there are only two finalists; Bill
McKibben, who focused on the issue of climate change, and Jeffry
Sachs, who focused on global poverty. Both of these proposals are
very important and worthy, but in the end there can only be one
winner.
Bill McKibben, an environmental activist and founder of the
international environmental organization, 350.org, argues that the
issue of climate change is too urgent to overlook. We have already
started to see the damage that we as humans have caused to our
planet. As a result of our actions, our earth is becoming more and
more inhospitable, and were everyday less the oasis and more the
desert (McKibben 2). Many examples of this increasingly hostile
environment have been well documented, including; the Arctic ice
cap is melting, the great glacier above Greenland is thinning the
oceans, which cover three-fourths of the earths surface, are distinctly

more acid and their levels rising; they are also warmer, which means
the greatest storms on our planets, hurricanes and cyclones, have
become more powerful the great storehouses of oil underneath the
earths crust are now more empty than full (McKibben 46). These
symptoms will only get worse if nothing is done.
The task of trying to repair the damage that we have cause will
be very difficult. We as humans are putting exorbitant amounts of
carbon dioxide into the environment every day. The good news is that
the planet can, slowly, soak up excess carbon dioxide if we stop
pouring more in (McKibben 16). Although it will be difficult for us as
humans to change our ways, there is hope.
There are two major steps in curbing our harm to the
environment. The first step is that we need to mature; weve spent
200 years hooked on growth, and its done us some good, and its done
us some bad, but mostly its gotten deep inside us, kept us perpetually
adolescent (McKibben 99). We need to change our attitudes that
climate change is not a huge issue or that we can continue living the
exact same way without negative repercussions. The second step is
knowing which things to get rid of. The way that we exist today is
very interconnected. For example the spike in oil prices, and the
credit crunch of 2008, weve connected things so tightly to each other
that small failures in one place vibrate throughout the entire system
(McKibben 101). In other words, we may need to start thinking more

locally so that if there is a failure in one place, the entire world

doesnt suffer.
Community plays a huge part in McKibbens proposal.
Decentralization is essential in this plan. Communities should start
looking inward for ways to reduce their environmental impact, not
outward. Of course there will have to be a shift in everyone, not just
the government, such as people will have to grow their own food
(McKibben 198). For this problem, McKibben suggests the Internet. All
of the information about how to live sustainably is available on the
Internet, and it can be delivered in a decentralized manner. However,
the most important part of this proposal is acting immediately.
This proposal has some very great points that are made. I
believe that this issue is crucial to fix, and fixing it now is imperative. I
agree that the best way to deal with this is to think locally as well. I
believe that the two main barriers for most people from buying locally
grown food are that it is hard to find and it is generally more
expensive. However, if growing locally became the norm, I believe
that most people would chose that alternative.
However, this plan presents some concern in my opinion. While
many people believe that climate change is an issue, there are still
many that do not. There are even more people that believe that it is
an issue, but they do not want to change their lifestyle in order to
make a difference. I believe that this plan would require a huge

amount of effort in order to make the green option a convenient

option.
Another hesitation that I have is that it is really not enough to
only get America on board, although it is undeniable that the U.S. is a
huge culprit. I am not sure what the average citizen of any other
country believes about climate change. If we did not get almost all of
the other major industrialized countries on board, all of this effort
would almost be for nothing.
The other finalist, Jeffrey Sachs, is a development economist
and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. His
proposal centers on ending extreme poverty worldwide.
There are three levels of poverty; extreme, moderate and
relative. Extreme poverty is when individuals cannot meet basic
needs for survival (Sachs 20). Moderate poverty is defined as when
basic needs are met, but just barely (Sachs 20). Relative poverty is
defined as when a household income level (is) below a given
proportion of average national income (Sachs 20). In 2010, the
income per day used to define extreme poverty was $1 or less.
Moderate poverty was defined as being in between $1 and $2 per
day. Unfortunately, today one sixth of humanity is not even on the
development ladder (Sachs 19), or in other words; extreme poverty.
Sachs set the optimistic view of ending extreme poverty by the year
2025.

In order to end extreme poverty by 2025, every country that

could contribute more, should contribute more, America among them.
Sachs suggests that by 2015 the amount of aid should be up to $195
billion, coming from the wealthy countries (Sachs 299). When broken
down, this number equates to .7% of the GDP for the United States
share. This money will ensure that everyone in these countries will
have access to basic goods and services. This money that is raised
through tax revenue would be funneled into an organization like the
U.N. and then dispersed to the countries in need.
However, that money would not just be handed to these
counties. There are goals that the countries would have to try and
meet with this money. These goals are called the Millennium
Development Goals. These goals include; eradicate extreme poverty
and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender
equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve mental
health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure
environmental sustainability, and develop a global partnership for
development (Sachs 211-212). There would have to be concrete
proof of these goals being met or else the countries do not get the
aid.
This is a very comprehensive plan and I definitely believe that it
does have strengths. The plan the Sachs laid out is very simple, which
will make it easier for people (specifically the public) to understand,

and therefore easier for them to get onboard with it. Also I believe
that measures are being taken to ensure that the money does what it
is intended to do, which is essential for a plan like this. Jeffrey Sachs
makes ending poverty worldwide seem like a possibility.
However, there are some concerns. The first is that I believe
that most Americans will not be to thrilled that we cannot chose the
countries that we give our foreign aid to. Often we have interests
other than humanitarian, such as oil, in mind when giving foreign aid.
People may question the U.N. and their reasons for giving certain
amounts of money to certain countries.
Another concern is when to end the aid. If this plan begins to
take place, when does it end? Is this intended to be just a few years of
aid and then the countries can grow by themselves, or will it be
extremely long term? If this aid is intended to be given long term, I
would want to know how long, because this is something the Sachs
never addresses,
After deliberating on these proposals I have decided to name
Jeffrey Sachs the winner for a few reasons. The first is the obvious
progress that the initiative to end global poverty has already had. He
mentions is his book some of the successes that have already taken
place including; the green revolution in Asia, the eradication of
smallpox, the campaign for child survival, the global alliance for
vaccines and immunization, the campaign against malaria, the control

of African River Blindness, the eradication of polio, the spread of

family planning, export processing zones in East Asia, and the mobile
phone revolution in Bangladesh (Sachs 264).
The next reason is the severity of the two issues discussed in
the proposals. One may argue that climate change affects everyone,
and poverty only affects a few. However, I would argue that the
severity of the problems faced by those living in extreme poverty are
more acute than those affected by climate change. Although
hurricanes and earthquakes are undoubtedly devastating, they are
relatively isolated incidents as opposed to living in extreme poverty,
which seemingly never relents.
The final reason that I chose Sachs as the winner was simply
because his plan included a point on being more environmentally
friendly. Granted it was not nearly to the scale that McKibben spoke
of, but it was enough to do something. If poverty is decreased by
Mckibbens plan it is an unintended, but welcome, outcome.
In conclusion, I believe that Sachs should win the donation from
the Chicago-World Foundation because his goals have already had
some successes, extreme poverty seems to be a more urgent issue
than climate change at the moment, and because if Sachs wins there
will still concrete steps taken to change climate change along with
eradicating poverty, but if McKibben wins there will not be concrete
steps taken to end poverty along with climate change. Both of these

issues are undoubtedly serious and I am sure that both of these

finalists will go on to do many things to improve our earth.