U.S. Foreign Assistance is woefully out of date. It’s crucial to our security and relations with the rest of the world to have a strong foreign assistance program. As CGD Research Fellow Stewart Patrick said in a 2006 speech on foreign assistance, “economic stagnation, authoritarian misrule, and weak institutions are closely linked with political instability, extremism, and violent conflict.” We know by now that global development makes us richer and safer. So how do we modernize U.S. foreign assistance?

CGD Senior Fellow Steve Radelet outlines an updated foreign assistance agenda for the future president in his recently published essay, “Modernizing Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century: An Agenda for the Next U.S. President.” Here are his five to-dos for America:

1. Develop a National Foreign Assistance Strategy that elevates global development as critical to our national interest and lays out the principal missions and mandates for foreign assistance;
2. Reform the organizational structure by merging most foreign assistance programs and related development policy instruments into a new Cabinet-level department, and strengthening the organization by expanding and deepening the professional staff, revamping delivery mechanisms, and building a serious monitoring and evaluation system;
3. Rewrite the outdated and unwieldy 1961 Foreign Assistance Act in order to streamline procurement rules, earmarks, and restrictions, and to reestablish a strong partnership between the Executive Branch and Congress that allows greater flexibility to the former provided there is greater accountability and responsiveness to the latter;
4. Place a higher priority on multilateral channels of assistance; and
5. Increase the quantity and improve the allocation of assistance, since even with recent increases U.S. foreign assistance is not large enough or unencumbered enough to meet our major foreign policy goals.

We here at Global Development Matters urge our future president to use this road map to prepare us for the 21st century and beyond, repairing our global leadership so we can better field environmental and security crises as well as advance our efficacy in helping the billion people that live on less than a dollar a day.

Watch this speech by USAID Administrator and Director of Foreign Assistance Henrietta Fore for a quick overview about why foreign assistance is important and what we can do about it.

At an early morning session today at Davos, Bono and Al Gore spoke about a “Unified Earth Theory” that attempts to combine the agendas of both global poverty and climate change. Each year at the World Economic Forum, the biggest names in politics and business turn the chilly Swiss resort town of Davos into a week-long think tank.

According to a BBC journalist blogging directly from the conference, the Bono/Gore team was short on answers, but brought up some great questions that we do need to consider. And soon. The link between global poverty and climate change is critical—and it works both ways. Helping developing countries increase their wealth may also affect their consumption levels. But developing countries are also going to be the hardest hit when it comes to global warming. So how can we help developing countries in a way that doesn’t increase global consumption levels to a dangerous extent?

Bono noted that the G-8 isn’t doing all it can. They haven’t met their pledge to contribute $50 billion annually to help stamp out poverty. Bono continued, however, that they have been making progress—both France and Germany said that they would make a better effort. In addition to talking about a plan that would incorporate the negative effects of carbon into its price tag, Gore said that global compacts could solve both problems of poverty and climate change.

Read more about Bono and Gore’s session at CNN.com.

As you’ve probably heard, Obama and Huckabee were the winners of last night’s Iowa Caucus.

In Obama’s victory speech, he gave a nod to climate change and poverty as some of the topics he would address as president. In December, Obama committed to strengthen our security through a global development strategy.

Watch his speech:

Huckabee also mentioned some global development issues when he appeared on the “Early Show” the morning of the caucus. He said people “in the Republican establishment think I’m a little too liberal for them because I actually care about hunger, poverty, disease and the environment.”

Watch the segment:

The race for nomination is far from over—make sure to check out the rest of the candidates’ stands on global development issues on our candidate page and on One.org’s On the Record page.

As you may know, developing countries are the most at risk when it comes to the effects of global warming. They depend quite a bit on agriculture and are also more closely located to the equator. At the Bali Conference, there has been talk of a new environmental policy deal that would create a fund for developing countries. The fund is a completely new item from the 1997 Kyoto treaty.

Saleemul Huq, a climate specialist at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, has some ideas about how this fund might work. A country that can’t meet its carbon emissions caps can currently invest in projects in developing countries. Huq’s idea is to take a percentage of those investments and put them in the fund to the countries that need it most. He said, “This is not development assistance. This is the polluter paying the victim of pollution.” There will have to be other methods that contribute to the fund as well, since much more money is needed than Huq’s solution could provide. But it’s good that some great minds in environment and policy are working on it.

The new deal is hoped to close in 2009.

Read NPR’s article to learn more.

The U.S. ranks #2 in the world’s worst environmental offenders, according to environmental groups at the global warming conference in Bali . Our greenhouse gas emissions and environmental policies contribute to this ranking. Saudi Arabia snags the gold at #1 worst environmental offender. Australia trails just behind the U.S. at #3—however, they just signed the Kyoto Protocol, so they may be on their way to a ranking that contributes to environmental well-being.

We are the only industrialized nation that hasn’t yet signed the Kyoto Protocol. If we add our name, we could make great strides in global development–since climate change affects developing countries first and worst.

Read the entire article here.

Yesterday, Google unveiled a new initiative that seeks to develop electricity from renewable resources, such as solar and wind power, that will be cheaper than the electricity created from burning coal. In 2008, Google will expend significant resources for research and development and investments in renewable energy.

Larry Page, Google Co-founder and President of Products, said “Our goal is to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal….If we meet this goal and large-scale renewable deployments are cheaper than coal, the world will have the option to meet a substantial portion of electricity needs from renewable sources and significantly reduce carbon emissions. We expect this would be a good business for us as well.”

Good business indeed. This initiative is good for the environment, which is good for global development. And we’re good with that.

Read more about Google’s initiative at their Press Center.

A new report found that poor countries are more likely to experience health problems due to climate change than rich countries.

Kevin Watkins, from the UN Development Program and author of this new report, spoke briefly on NPR this morning. His report concentrates on the immediate effects of climate change on poor countries. The report found that developing countries will be hit particularly hard by health problems, since they don’t have the resources to deal with environmental disasters, such as droughts and floods.

For example, people in Northern Ethiopia living in drought zones have no protection should one occur. This study looks at two groups of Ethiopian children, some born in an area experiencing a drought and others that weren’t. Guess what? Five years later, those who were born in the drought-affected area were far more malnourished—by 36% percent.

This drought also led to long-term malnourishment to over 2 million children in the country. This backed their parents into a corner. They had to sell their farming equipment to take care of the immediate needs of their children—but this left them no way to feed their families when the draught was over. Desmond Tutu refers to this as “Adaptation Apartheid,” which means that when something bad happens, rich countries are able to use their resources to withstand it, but poor countries are left high and dry.

Watkins’ solution to this problem is that rich countries should change the way they give aid, for example, giving more money to improve flood control and early warning systems. We should keep in mind the effects of climate change whenever we give aid money.

Want to listen to full story? Check it out on NPR.

According to an article on CNNMoney.com, a survey conducted in 11 countries found that respondents believe that corporations should bear more responsibility when it comes to societal problems—despite the respondents’ high levels of distrust for those same corporations and institutions in general. The people surveyed were “influential citizens,” defined as the 10-15% percent of the population who initiate change, not including elected officials.

Those surveyed from America, the UK, Canada, and Germany believe that corporations should play as much of a role as their governments in preserving the environment and acting to reduce poverty.

Read the article to find out more about the study.

According to an article in today’s Washington Post, the Democratic Candidates all support a plan that would bring greenhouse gas emissions down 80% from 1990s levels by 2050—and they all take a big risk. Some concerns are higher energy costs in the short term and the fact that Americans would face significant lifestyle changes, which could be unpopular with voters.

Here are some of the things the article quoted the candidates as saying:

Edwards explained to democratic primary voters, “It won’t be easy, but it is time for a president who asks Americans to be patriotic about something other than war.”

In an interview, Edwards also recognized the challenges of supporting potentially unpopular climate plans. He said, “I’d be the first to tell you: This is not necessarily the greatest political calculation….” Edwards added, “No matter what the politics are, there’s such a moral responsibility to address this issue. We’ve got to do it.”

In a speech yesterday in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) spoke of her plans that would reduce foreign oil imports by two-thirds in comparison to current projections.

She said, “This is the biggest challenge we’ve faced in a generation — a challenge to our economy, our security, our health and our planet. It’s time for America to meet it. . . I believe America is ready to take action, ready to break the bonds of the old energy economy and ready to prove that the climate crisis is also one of the greatest economic opportunities in the history of our country. . . . It will be a new beginning for the 21st century.”

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said in a Des Moines speech last month that rising energy costs will be mediated by new technology. He also admitted, “But at least on the front end, there’s going to be some costs, and we can’t pretend like there’s a free lunch.”

The Republican candidates are more dubious on the topic of climate change.

Former Mayer Giuliani warned, “if we try to deal with it at too hysterical a pace, we could create problems.”

So far, the only Republican candidate to be seriously addressing global warming concerns is Senator John McCain (Ariz.), who supports a 60 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2050.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) holds that carefully handling the climate change issue is important for either party. He said in an interview that the Democrats could turn off voters with a “litigation and regulation” stance. He continued, “Then, Republican candidates are on the opposite extreme,” he added. “A candidate who’s anti-environment and denies global warming gets killed in the suburbs.”

All policy-makers need to do what’s best for global development, including supporting critical environmental issues.

Read the full article for more information on this topic.

Our world is more interconnected than ever—we need to take steps to make sure it stays that way. A new report underscores that how we treat our environment impacts national security.

Relations between countries will be severely strained due to scarcity of resources and people fleeing droughts and rising sea-levels. Nations may turn inwards and globalisation could be threatened.

Poor countries are the hardest hit in terms of environmental consequences. At a forum to release “The Age of Consequences” report, Leon Fuerth, national security adviser to former Vice President Al Gore said that the more fortunate countries could “go through a 30-year process of kicking people away from the lifeboat.” He continued, saying that this would be “extremely debilitating in moral terms” and “it also suggests the kinds of hatreds that build up between different groups will be accentuated as these groups attempt to move to more clement locations on the planet.”

John Podesta, President Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, president of the Center for American Progress think tank, and contributor to the report, spoke about an inevitable scenario “in which people and nations are threatened by massive food and water shortages, devastating natural disasters and deadly disease outbreaks.”

As early as this week in the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, a bill is up for debate regarding limiting carbon emissions. Let’s hope that we can take some steps to shape our policy in order to minimize our harmful impacts on the environment.

We want to continue to support the flow of good will and resources between nations. Each of us can take steps to reduce our own carbon footprint. We can also tell our candidates how important it is to us to contribute to the stability of our planet and the people on it.

Read the article for more information.

You can also download portions of the report (or the whole thing if you have a lot of time on your hands!) to learn more.