In the face of the global food crisis, the result of a complicated amalgamation of inflated oil prices, stuttering trade policies, and an expanding population, two billion people across the world are at risk for starvation. New York’s Metro newspaper ran an article today chronicling the World Bank’s response to this issue, citing that the bank is immediately upping its aid relief by $1.2 billion. It’s unclear how the money will be distributed and how exactly two billion people will avoid starvation with less than a dollar of aid per person.

The crisis is expected to be a prime topic at the U.N. summit in Rome next week, where officials will struggle to solidify a strategic plan to stave off the riots, malnutrition, and starvation that have wreaked havoc on countries across the globe.

In other news, the White House has finally recognized the severity of global warming, publishing a detailed report, three years late, on the rippling effect of global warning in our nation. The White House was court ordered to produce the report, due to its reluctance to recognize the issue. The shameful turn-a-blind-eye approach taken by Bush and his staff has severely stalled the development of preventitive strategies over the past three years as the tangible consequences of global warming continue to increase. Read the full report here .

A recent report from the Center for Global Prosperity outlines an interesting trend in philanthropic aid relief. Between private companies, religious organizations, universities, corporations, and individual citizens, aid relief from these sources was nearly five times the amount provided by the U.S. government in 2006.

Immigrants working in the country and sending money back to relatives in underdeveloped and impoverished nations contributed significantly to this figure. In 2006, U.S. aid totaled close to $24 billion; aid from individuals alone–both legal and illegal citizens–was over $106 billion.

So what does this tell us? For one, “official development assistance” from the government isn’t doing nearly enough for the millions of destitute, poverty stricken families around the world. Carol Adelman, director of the Center for Global Prosperity, explains that the trend demonstrates “how poor people are helping themselves through partnerships that are locally owned, transparent, and accountable–with better, more lasting results than government aid has had in the past.”

 Click here to read the full report.

A recent article in the New Zealand Herald (click here for full article) outlines the very disturbing truth about aid funds meant to alleviate poverty, famine, and disease in Africa. The incredibly disappointing claim by author Loretta Napoleoni is not exactly a new one, but a reminder of just how inhibitive our often one-dimensional concept of aid relief really is.  

The article discusses the complete failure of organizations, particularly Bono’s Live Aid, to apply the millions of dollars of raised funds to programs that actually benefit the people it’s meant for. To add salt to the wound, Napoleoni even claims that the aid has actually made the entire continent poorer, as many of the funds are diverted to corrupt government organizations and warlords, which only instigates more poverty, famine, and disease.

While Bono’s intentions are surely nothing but good, it’s somewhat obvious that his inexperience with running a billion dollar relief organization was overlooked in favor of his celebrity. If only “curing” Africa of all its problems were as easy as putting on a few concerts. Reminds me of Natalie Portman’s crusade to end poverty, which, she claims, is “just a mouse click away.”

This should be one big lesson that speaks to both the naivete and egotistical sense of power that breed such disaster out of good intention. It’s a tremendous shame that an entire continent is deprived of basic human rights because of its own government, but it’s even more of a shame that we’ve handed over half a trillion dollars over the past 50 years and simply walked away.

There’s been a lot of buzz this presidential primary season about ending poverty, quite a mighty undertaking that has cost us about $2.3 trillion so far. Poverty, it seems, has been less than impressed by our egotistical aspirations.

Case in point: In 2004, Bloomberg initiated a five-year master plan to end homelessness in New York City. Two and half years into the grand plan, Mary Brosnahan, executive director of the Coalition for the Homeless, reveals the grim reality of the plan’s progress in the 2008 State of the Homeless report. She remarks:

“Instead of ending chronic homelessness, we are seeing record numbers of families seeking shelter. The Mayor and the Department of Homeless Services have repeatedly dismissed any criticism of their plan–but hopefully they will take a look at these numbers and agree that what they’ve been trying so far just isn’t working.”

This year, a lethargic economy and a complicated system that makes it difficult, if not close to impossible, for families to obtain and process the necessary Section 8 housing documents has helped make 2007 the worst year since the Great Depression for family homelessness. That’s right, the worst.

A ten-year plan to end homelessness, adopted by dozens of cities around the nation, is in a similar state of non-movement.

The fact is, poverty can’t be “ended” in a said time, in say, one presidential sitting, and without consideration of the fact that poverty is a vexing social issue. It’s not merely an issue of providing people with housing or jobs. $2.3 trillion later it seems we’d get the point already.