Worldwide summits have a major problem of legitimacy because until recently they were held exclusively by wealthy countries that pretended to solve global problems, even though the rich part of the world made up only one sixth of the population on this planet. For this reason, the importance and purpose of such summits have been seriously questioned in recent years.

At the rhetorical and political level, the wealthy countries have now begun to recognize their responsibility towards the world community. The discussions have deviated from "What's in it for us? "Approach to the question" What can we do for the rest of the world? " In addition, the list of participants for such summits has been expanded. Heads of state and government from developing countries - Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa etc. - are of course also invited today. This is absolutely essential, because in today's world no country can legitimately speak for another, and none of the problems we are struggling with can be solved by only one part of the world on our own.

In my view, there are currently three dominant risks. The first is the problem of the environment, which is increasingly burdened by human activities. Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen recently coined the term "Anthropocene", a new geological age in which we live today; it is characterized by the fact that contemporary humanity intervenes in an unprecedented and dangerous way in the natural physical cycles - for example the carbon and nitrogen cycle - and also causes the loss of natural habitats, the extinction of species and other problematic developments.

The second major challenge is a tightly networked world in which people from different parts of the world experience considerable differences in their level of prosperity. Because we are all connected, our destinies are interwoven in a unique way. There are no distant places anymore, and any part of the world can both contribute to common prosperity and cause serious harm to another part if it feels disadvantaged. Our world is divided along prosperity borders more than ever, and poverty is so hopeless in many parts of the world that life there is nothing but a daily struggle to survive.

Eine Milliarde von uns lebt im reichen Teil der Welt, mit einem durchschnittlichen Jahreseinkommen von circa 30 000 Dollar pro Jahr. Viele von uns haben sogar ein jährliches Einkommen von Millionen von Dollars, und etwa tausend von uns verfügen über ein Vermögen von mehr als einer Milliarde Dollar – mehr Geld, als irgendwer in mehreren Leben ausgeben kann. Gleichzeitig gibt es eine weitere Milliarde Menschen, die tagaus, tagein keine gesicherte Mahlzeit haben und denen nur Wasser zur Verfügung steht, das wir niemals, schon gar nicht täglich, trinken würden. Diese Menschen leben an Orten, an denen ein einziger Mückenstich töten kann, weil es dort weder Insektizidbehandelte Moskitonetze noch verfügbare Ein-Dollar-Medikamente gibt, um die Malariainfektion zu bekämpfen. Diese Armut ist die Hauptursache für Unruhen, Konflikte und chaotische Zustände in Gegenden wie Afghanistan, Darfur oder Somalia. Wir müssen die Art der Herausforderung, vor der wir an solchen Orten stehen, begreifen: Sie ist im Grunde nicht politisch, sondern ökonomisch und ökologisch.

The third challenge is living together on a crowded planet. In the United States, we forgot that coexistence means talking to each other. This is why such summits can be so important. American politicians are currently setting conditions before speaking. However, it is absurd not to speak to Iran or to a Palestinian government elected in free elections just because they do not meet these conditions. It is also dangerous for the whole world because at the beginning of every understanding there must be an exchange of ideas. We have misunderstood history in that talks can be equated with appeasement and that if we sit down and discuss, it means giving up our freedom.

A successful summit must deal with three things: First, how to solve the dramatically worsening ecological crisis. Secondly, the crisis of global inequality has to be addressed because one billion people are struggling to survive on a daily basis. Ten million die every year because they are too poor to stay alive. Third, there must be honest, unconditional discussion to find peaceful solutions to the world's conflicts. We have already made promises about climate change, but we have not kept them. We don't need new promises when it comes to the poverty problem either. We just have to adhere to those we have already given. With regard to the climate, there is already a global agreement, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified in 1994.

The Heiligendamm Summit could lay the foundations for a post-Kyoto world in which we make commitments that are in line with the goals we set ourselves at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The 13th meeting of the signatories to the UN Framework Convention in Bali in December 2007 must consider a post-Kyoto agreement that is capable of seriously addressing the challenge of climate change. In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, this agreement should include general requirements without distinguishing between Annex I and Annex II countries (industrialized and developing countries). China is currently preparing to become the world's largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions from energy generation. China will soon be by far the largest source of emissions. There will be no solution to the climate problem without China accepting a number of binding commitments. India will also soon become a major source of emissions. Countries such as the United States or Australia that have not signed the Kyoto Protocol or Canada, which has signed Kyoto but have not implemented their commitments, will have to commit to the same targets. It is an important step to ensure a truly global deal. will have to commit to the same goals. It is an important step to ensure a truly global deal. will have to commit to the same goals. It is an important step to ensure a truly global deal.

As a second step, we have to set bold, long-term as well as short-term goals for the first half of this century. We have to agree on what the “avoidance of dangerous anthropogenic interventions” means in terms of quantity, ie whether it is about avoiding carbon dioxide concentrations of more than 500 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere or whether an increase in the global average temperature of two degrees Celsius is prevented should. A quantitative limit can be converted into a political set of rules that implements the targets. A promising approach would be to set a target upper limit for atmospheric carbon dioxide and similar maximum values ​​for the five other main greenhouse gases, and to set these emission and concentration caps in the course of the 21st Century at regular intervals. Such an approach could be adopted at the Conference of the Parties and corrected over time, depending on whether new scientific knowledge requires more or less stringent standards.

In a third step, agreement should be reached that there must be a world market price for carbon dioxide emissions. This market incentive - be it an expansion of the emissions trading system in Europe, the taxation of emissions or other types of taxation - will underpin further measures.

Fourth, significant efforts must be made to develop technologies that are more energy efficient, to tap new energy resources, and to use fossil fuels in an environmentally responsible manner using CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration, CO2 capture and sequestration) processes.

The fifth point concerns adequate funding for poor countries' adaptation efforts by rich countries. Because climate change is not a static reality; no matter what we do, it will worsen significantly over the next 50 years. The thermal inertia in the climate system, even if we don't emit a single ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from now on, will cause a warming of at least another half a degree Celsius. However, because we will continue to emit greenhouse gases and because the climate will continue to change in the coming decades, adjustment is necessary. I see two practical steps: we can provide funds for pilot projects of important technologies and introduce a mechanism to compensate for poor equatorial countries,

In my view, CCS processes are the most important technologies. China and India alone have enough coal to destroy the world's climate, and since coal is the cheapest source of energy for these countries, they will use it to fuel their rapid development. We need to drive the development of low-carbon technologies because the alternatives are miserable compared to safe coal use. For this we need CCS pilot projects (such as the Vattenfall project in Germany) and other projects all over Europe. We mustn't waste any more time, so I urge that we agree on a worldwide pilot project to test CCS methods.

We know that deforestation is responsible for around 20 to 25 percent of total CO2 emissions worldwide. The governments of countries with tropical rainforests have approached me and others, assuring them that they want to stop deforestation. However, their farmers, their lumberjacks and wood processors need financial incentives to stop deforestation. This applies not only to the Amazon, but also to the Congo Basin, Papua New Guinea and other areas. Financial incentives to stop deforestation would secure the global common good in three ways: by reducing poverty, the biological sequestration of carbon dioxide and the conservation of biodiversity.

Millennium Goals: Solving the Poverty Problem

The other half of the challenge is to reconcile the unprecedented prosperity of some individuals with the unimaginable poverty that millions of people still live in. To this end, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were adopted seven years ago. The MDGs' 15-year agenda envisages halving hunger and poverty worldwide in this period, reducing child mortality by two thirds and maternal mortality by three quarters by 2015. In Heiligendamm this task should not be tackled reluctantly, but with energy, ingenuity, commitment and with a feeling of privilege. Germany has the chance to lead the fight against extreme poverty.

We have to think pragmatically about the climate and remember our commitments. One of our main commitments is to work with the poorest countries to help them achieve the Millennium Development Goals. At the Monterrey Conference on Financing Development in 2002, this goal was formulated in monetary terms. The Monterrey consensus that emerged from the meeting says that those countries that have not yet done so are encouraged to make concrete efforts towards the international goal of 0.7 percent of gross national product (GNP) as official development aid. In 2005 these goals were taken to heart by the EU, but not by the USA: the European Union promised to provide 0.51 percent of development funds by 2010 and 0 by 2015. 7 percent (or 0.17 and 0.33 percent in the new member states). For Germany, the 0.51 percent target means an increase in development aid of 0.16 percent of GNP over the next three years. This is doable and should be done with enthusiasm. This money saves lives and helps to create peace. No new promises are needed today, but compliance with and implementation of existing obligations. But it is impossible to use $ 50 billion wisely without proper planning. If countries are asked to make plans for increased aid flows, and without guarantees that these funds will flow at all, then we will continue to experience a vicious cycle: Donor countries hold back aid funds because they argue that there is no absorption capacity for them Funds. The recipients are said that despite the political promises, it is impossible to predict whether, when and how the aid will actually come. That is why these countries are unable to plan, they cannot begin training doctors and nurses or building clinics because they do not know whether money will flow. This may be prudent financial planning, but it will not end poverty or help achieve the Millennium Development Goals. It is certainly not a responsible handling of the promises of the rich countries. they cannot start training doctors and nurses or building clinics because they do not know if money will flow. This may be prudent financial planning, but it will not end poverty or help achieve the Millennium Development Goals. It is certainly not a responsible handling of the promises of the rich countries. they cannot start training doctors and nurses or building clinics because they do not know if money will flow. This may be prudent financial planning, but it will not end poverty or help achieve the Millennium Development Goals. It is certainly not a responsible handling of the promises of the rich countries.

A major breakthrough would be if the rich countries were to clarify their specific schedules for annual aid increases until 2010 so that well-governed countries in Africa could start acting immediately. Knowing that aid will go from $ 40 to $ 80 a head, these countries will enable them to fund the training and hiring of more nurses and community health workers, anti-malarial drugs, school construction, and new teacher salaries. Germany could take the lead in these efforts without having to put a single cent on the aid promised so far. Germany would only keep the promises made so far, which are urgently needed for success.

Some other major issues could be resolved very quickly. There is nothing easier than fighting malaria. The reason this disease is so absurd and tragic is that it will again cost two million lives this year, even though it is 100 percent treatable with one-dollar medication. We let millions of people die of malaria for no reason. Infection with malaria can be curbed by the mass use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets, and the disease can be combated in the event of infection with so-called artemisin combination therapies. Depending on the environmental situation, spraying insecticides in buildings and other methods of vector control are also appropriate. Africa needs an estimated three million mosquito nets to contain malaria. These networks are made by BASF, Vestergard made in Denmark or Thusomo Chemical made in Japan cost five dollars and last for five years. Because two children often share a place to sleep, one dollar a year could mean 50 cents per child per network. Mosquito nets are remarkably effective and affordable, yet only a fraction of those who need them are equipped with them. Three hundred million beds by five dollars is $ 1.5 billion. The U.S. military budget requested for 2008 is $ 660 billion, or $ 1.8 billion a day. As a result, equipping each African berth for five years with an insecticide-treated mosquito net would cost 20 hours of Pentagon spending. With additional medication, community health workers, rapid diagnostic tests, etc., it would My colleagues and I calculated that it would cost an estimated $ 3 billion a year to fully control malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. Three billion dollars: The governments of the billion people from the wealthy part of the world will be in Heiligendamm. Three dollars - a cup of coffee - from each of us would be enough to save the lives of one to two million children a year. And we can't do that?

Working on the UN Millennium Project has taught us that holistic approaches - such as fighting disease, supporting women, introducing family planning, clinical health services, and helping farmers - in rural areas would require about $ 50 to $ 60 per capita from outside donors to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. This bill includes the fight against major diseases (malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis) and the provision of clinical health services. Also included is the doubling or tripling of agricultural productivity by supplying small farmers with fertilizer and seeds that generate high yields, by drilling and maintaining safe wells, by introducing additional irrigation for drought-prone and drought-prone areas, etc.

Based on these recommendations, the UNDP, the Earth Institute that I head, and a non-governmental organization called Millennium Promise launched the Millennium Villages in Africa project. We tested these ideas with remarkable results. Within a year or two, villages turn a famine into a food surplus; Malaria can be reduced by 80 or 90 percent; 100 percent of children go to school within a few months - thanks to free school meal programs. This project is already having a tremendous impact in ten countries on the continent. More and more countries want to be involved. That is why I would like to say to the G-8 governments: We will not need lengthy studies or teams of bureaucratic advisors in the coming years. We need pragmatic approaches locally to produce more food, contain malaria, treat HIV-infected people and restore hope in Africa. That should be Heiligendamm's promise.

Prof. Dr. JEFFREY D. SACHS, born 1954, Quetelet is Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University in New York. He heads the Earth Institute and was
director of the UN Millennium Project from 2000 to 2006.

https://internationalepolitik.de/de/wie-die-welt-zu-retten-waere

Read more (in German)