WHO is an international body and looks at
the very poor developing countries as well as at the developed countries.
Not exact matches
It ushered in the age of globalization, it allowed
countries like China to be revolutionized from a
very poor,
developing country, to the second largest economy in the world.
This seems surprising when one looks at the statistics — after all, the
developing middle class, an indicator of a more urban and modernizing society, is still a minority (perhaps 300 million of China's 1.3 billion population), albeit a fast - growing one, and China remains a
very poor country in terms of per capita GDP, as well as substantially rural.
In
developing countries with
very poor healthcare system, like Nigeria, the average life expectancy is 40 years, with the lowest in Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland which is 35 years, Nigeria has a life expectancy of 44 years compared to life expectancy of 82 in Japan and 80 in Switzerland (Population Reference Bureau, 2007).
As resistance
develops, it's
very expensive right now, so it's hard for these
poor African
countries to use it.
That's why so many people loved using it, not just in
developed countries, but especially in
poorer countries, and it's been
very popular with students.
However, clever marketing (combined with
very poor science) has resulted in these atrocious products being the major source of food fed to most pets in
developed countries.
If the United States is a
very large emitter of gigs compared to most other nations in terms of historical and per capita emissions, why doesn't the United States have an ethical duty to fund reasonable climate change adaptation measures in and losses and damages of
poor developing countries that have done little or nothing to cause human - induced warming.
In fact there are
very likely to be groups and individuals exceeding their fair share of safe global emission in
developing countries because wealth differences in many
developing countries are great and there are wealthy and middle classes in most
countries even in
countries where the vast majority of the people are
very poor.
How can you be so certain that future generations would not say we panicked on
very little information, ignored the many unknowns and allowed ourselves to be diverted from real and pressing problems of poverty, much of it caused by lack of energy — to chase a phantom problem that could be resolved as technological progress followed the wider prosperity achieved as
poor countries developed?
The rapid emergence of China, India, and other
developing economies as formidable economic competitors to OECD economies has also rendered two further pillars of the old framework untenable: first, the notion that rich
countries would agree to
very deeply cut their own emissions to create more atmospheric space for
poor nations emissions to grow or, alternatively, that they would heavily subsidize the deployment of cleaner but more expensive energy technologies in the
developing world.
But more importantly, people in
developing countries, especially the
poorest and most vulnerable, require climate finance in a
very real way to meet their health, food, energy, and other daily needs.
Projections that global resource use and emissions will not rise
very much due to rapid population growth in the
poorest countries are based on the assumption that those
countries will remain desperately
poor by the standards of
developed countries.