I don't have much time right now, so I'll respond to a few points:
That "other than" part is the key to me.
When we have enough for everyone...and wont give it to the people who arent born in the right country and look the right way....how are we looking at preventing climate change for the solution?
That's a legitimate criticism, but it shows here that we think on different scales. My point was that climate change hurts the developing countries' OWN capabilities to cope with their problems, and makes them even more dependent on foreign aid. That is not what development politics want.
Direct food and clothing aid is actually hurting those societies, as they are destroying the market. Things like these help in form of short-term humanitarian aid, but they do not help alleviate suffering long-term, as change has to come from within those societies.
And when we have man-made climate-change, disproportionally caused by the western world (per capita, China isn't even in the top 10 I believe), that hurts the less developed world's livelihoods and makes it virtually impossible for them to provide for their people, long-term, it becomes a moral responsibility for us to limit climate change.
Thankfully, science has enabled us to see beyond phenomena like hunger and diseases and tackle them at their roots. Donating food and clothes is nice, but not really helping. That's what the "Sustainable Development" paradigm is about. Man-made climate-change is severely hurting that case.