Pogge puts forth a proposal called the GRD, if the statistics he puts forth are correct, I think that this is a very good idea; however, I have major doubts that this is nothing but a theoretical solution to the problem. I don’t disagree with him on many grounds of his theory, but my main problem is, to what degree is any of this a realistic solution. “Idea that the global poor own an inalienable stake in all limited natural resources.”(202) I don’t disagree with this, but on what grounds is this claim being made? It seems to me that if just the poor own a stake in it, then many other people, no matter how wealthy they may be, would want the same share in it. Also, I am not seeing how this claim is connecting directly with his claim on how institutions are contributing to the global crisis. It seems that he says we have a negative duty to change the institutions but then says the way to solve the problem is to establish this GRD, is this how he is suggesting that our negative duty should be fulfilled? A more practical claim in my opinion would be that there be a GRD within each country, but not a GRD on the global scale, where it is only going to the poor. Again, I don’t disagree; I just think that there would be an unfathomable amount of resistance for applying this type of distribution. I just don’t see how this is connected to our negative duty we are failing to fulfill. I agree with him that our institutions need to be radically altered but how is the GRD part of that? If anyone could make it clearer to me, that would be helpful.

In section 8.2.2 he says “Yes, the affluent often pay for the resources they use, such as imported crude oil. But these payments go to other affluent people.”(208) this just seems out place and to me doesn’t go along with the rest of his theory and argument. In section 8.1.1 when he talks about the institutions that seems to coincide with the last few chapters a lot more then this section. Also, in 8.2.3 when he is talking about how history has brought us here he says, “Without these crimes there would not be the actually existing radical inequality which consists in these persons being affluent and those being extremely poor.”(210) I understand that he says that history has brought us to this point considering slavery, genocide and etc., but again this doesn’t seem much more than an observation of history. He says that these are the three grounds for injustice, are these three it though? I think we need to act on this urgent issue. I’m just not seeing how these lasts two grounds really connect up or stand firm within his theory, even though there just grounds he is putting forth for injustice. I agree with the suggestion about the GRD, it just doesn’t seem to be plausible.

“We are violating a negative duty of justice insofar as we contribute to the harms it reproduces and insofar as we resist as we resist suitable reforms.”(216) part of the reform, at least from his perspective, is that we need to establish this GRD because the poor have received the short end of the deal throughout history and this potentially has created the problem. So would this GRD be some sort of compensation for the poor? Given that they have not been able to benefit from it as much as the people in the affluent countries. And if this is compensation for past actions (or lack thereof) then what else are the poor entitled to claim, on grounds of compensation? I agree 100% that our current institutions need to be reformed; I just think that the GRD is too theoretical and does not properly fit in, given the rest of his theory.