What’s New June 2011

This page lists changes to this site for June 2011.

See below for other updates and to get notified of changes to the site.

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) recently published new preliminary figures for aid in 2010.

It showed official development assistance (ODA) aid from wealthy governments had increased to $129 billion in 2010 (at constant 2009 prices). This is roughly 0.32% of GNI (Gross National Income) of the donor nations.

Net ODA in dollars: the US provided the most in dollar terms. As a percent of their GNI, Norway provided the most

Yet, over 40 years ago nations promised to reach 0.7% of their GNI by the mid-1970s. While each year the amount of aid falls quite short of that 0.7% target (less than half of that target), the quality and effectiveness of that aid is often questionable, sometimes benefiting the donor more than the recipient due to the types of conditions attached to this aid.

This update includes a number of new and updated charts and graphs.

40 years ago, rich country governments agreed to give 0.7% of their GNI (Gross National Income) as official aid to poor countries for development assistance.

The average aid delivered each year has actually been between 0.2 to 0.4%. The shortfall has therefore accumulated to $4.17 trillion dollars at 2009 prices, while total aid delivered in that same time frame has reached $3.04 trillion.

Year after year, the accumulated shortfall increases at almost a steady rate

This update includes updated charts and graphs that look into this further.

In the wake of the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the nuclear disaster that followed in Fukushima, many regions around the world have found their their nuclear power policy and plans subject to more public debate and scrutiny.

Many nations have decided to continue including nuclear power in their plans, as they feel it will be safe, especially if not situated in seismic zones. Many of them have also decided on further reviews first. Some have decided to either forgo nuclear power or, as in the case of Germany, opted for an accelerated phaseout of all nuclear power plants and push for renewables instead.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also recently released a special report on renewable energy noting it already accounted for some 12% of global primary energy supply (not just electricity) in 2008 and has potential to improve even more as costs continue to decline, while fossil fuel costs continue to rise.

Even if there is a technical case for nuclear power for the future (the nuclear power plants the suffered the most at Fukushima were older ones and newer ones are supposed to be more advanced technology and have even more safety technology built in), is it now less palatable, politically?

You can also