UN to start a 'green revolution'

UN to start a 'green revolution'

news.bbc.co.uk

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said he is deeply concerned about the sharp rise in global food prices.
Mr Ban said the trend would hinder progress towards the millennium development goals (MDGs), which aim to halve extreme poverty by 2015.

The UN World Food Program (WFP) and other agencies may be forced to ration food aid, he said in a BBC interview.

He said shortages might be eased by a "green revolution" to transform farming methods in Africa.

(visit the link for the full news article)

How about the UN grow a pair and step in to stop the mass genocide and dictatorships over there. Don't get me wrong I think a so called green revolution is a great idea... but how about implementing it after they sort out the political BS over there. They can build as many farms and improve tech as much as they want but it isn't going to stop the people of Africa dying.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

The U.N. Security Council is strictly a peace keeping organization, not a peace making one. They will do anything within their power to stop a situation getting out of hand, but once people start actually shooting at each other, there's basically nothing the U.N. can do without contradicting itself. All you need to do is watch 'Hotel Rwanda' to see how the U.Ns hands are tied.

As for this green initiative undertaken by the Secretary General, I don't think Africa is ready for it. Even the most powerful nations have enough trouble implementing any sort of program with the word 'green' in the title, so I hate to think how a scattered country controlled from a bullet-ridden embassy would fare.
There are far effective ways of taking control of Africa's problems, such as curbing the drug-route up the west coast before it becomes out of hand and totally corrupts already weakened governments, or supplying them with the millions of tonnes of surplus grain that just sits around until it spoils.

The UN has had some peace keeping campaigns in Africa such as Rhodesia. Is it not in the UN's best interest to maintain the fragile peace they instill? As mentioned above, one just needs to look at Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Sure the UN restored peace during the presidential elections nearly 3 decades ago but just look at the place now. For me I believe that the UN has failed in this effort. Fair enough peace was maintained for around 2 decades but there has to be a point where the UN steps back in to manage the situation. What good is a peace keeping organisation if they just walk away once stability is achieved?

As for the "green revolution" it strikes me as a little absurd. Countries like Zimbabwe can barely manage their crops because the government handed the land to it's supporters. Driving down the streets of Bulawayo the once fertile farmland is now a desolate wasteland filled with weeds and rubbish. I think the UN should free the people of Africa before they even try to feed them.

reply to post by AbsoluteLegend


I am pretty sure the green revolution in the industrial world only ensured A). poorer quality food, B). more pollution to water and soil, C). a steady stream of profit for large businesses, D). general lower health, and I'm sure others...

What the world needs is sustainable agriculture without the use of GMOs, biocides, and nitrogen fertilizers.

I don't see how using weapons (nitrogen) is going to solve our food problems.

Why don't we work with nature as opposed to against it.

No, that's too simple. We need to dominate nature.

I forgot.

yes what could go wrong.... like Oil-for-Food this is another noble idea that will do nothing but line UN's pockets