mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Limping to Paris
It’s Pay Up or Shut Up for the Climate Deal

The world’s poor countries won’t sign on to a Global Climate Treaty in Paris this December if it doesn’t include assurances of cold, hard cash. That’s the message being put forth by Nozipho Joyce Mxakato-Diseko, a South African climate delegate who speaks for the G77+China, who described climate change as an “existential” threat for the developing world and a “matter of life and death.” Reuters reports:

[South African delegate Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko’s] Group of 77 and China, which has expanded to 134 members from 77 at its founding, wants guarantees that aid will be “scaled up from a floor of $100 billion from 2020″…The United States and other rich nations favor vaguer wording that stops short of promising a rise from 2020. […]

“Whether Paris succeeds or not will be dependent on what we have as part of the core agreement on finance,” she told a news conference in Bonn during the Oct. 19-23 U.N. talks among almost 200 nations, the final preparatory session before Paris.

This isn’t the first time Mxakoto-Diseko has made headlines this week. On Monday she likened the current state of climate treaty negotiations to apartheid, saying those in the developing world are finding themselves “in a position where in essence we are disenfranchised.”

That’s a feeling widely shared in the developing world, which rightfully takes issue with the idea of a climate deal that restricts the industrialization of poorer nations, when it was the developed world’s own growth that put them in the position of having to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That complaint is exactly what the climate fund set up in the failed 2009 Copenhagen summit was meant to address, but that program has so far been underfunded.

It’s no surprise, then, that the G77 is making a big deal about financing as we gear up for Paris. Rich countries—the United States chief among them—will push back on this, wary of being indefinitely on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars, but it’s hard to imagine the impending summit producing any sort of agreement that doesn’t involve financial guarantees.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Fat_Man

    “This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel: Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.” By Bjorn Lomborg on Oct. 21, 2015

    “In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel.”

    * * *

    “In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.”

    • Fat_Man

      On the other hand, if rich white people are that stupid, no responsible leader of a poor country should hesitate a moment before sticking his hand out. Solar panels do have scrap value after all.

  • f1b0nacc1

    ” but it’s hard to imagine the impending summit producing any sort of agreement that doesn’t involve financial guarantees.”

    • Pete


      Roger that, brother!

  • Andrew Allison

    Given the well-documented failure of cash aid to developing nations, especially in Africa, to actually reach its objective, any aid should be non-cash.

    • Suzyqpie

      Dambisa Moyo’s book ” Dead Aid” is an excellent book on the disaster of aid to Africa.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Global Warming” is the Greatest Hoax in History. For 18 Years the Globe hasn’t Warmed, what are you going to believe? Your lying eyes, or the foremost leftist Politicians in the World?

    • Suzyqpie

      I respectfully suggest that the War on Poverty would be a worthy competitor for the title of Greatest Hoax in History….

      • Andrew Allison

        Might I offer the War on Drugs and the TSA as equally worthy competitors

        • f1b0nacc1

          perhaps ‘worthy’ is a bad (though appropriate) choice of words?

  • Proud Skeptic

    As was said in previous comments…
    This thing isn’t about saving the planet. It is about wealth transfer.

    • iconoclast

      and control

  • Suzyqpie

    The Climate Change Festival is in Paris this year. Caterers are lined up. Various entertainment acts are booked. Hotel reservations are made. Local sightseeing tours will be available at the concierge desk. It being Paris, there will be fashion shows for the party goers. No one will be paying their own expenses, various governments will be picking up the tab for the holiday participants. It is a gravy train, all aboard, choo choo, or would that be Chu Chu…..

  • Jim__L

    No way this will pass the US Senate. The Paris deal is dead already.

  • Mike_Hohmann

    A clear distinction has to be made between the finance of development aid and the fiction of a manmade carbon dioxide caused global climate disaster, which in turn appears to be the opposite to what Flora – and therefore also all of Fauna including us – are known to require with nothing but beneficial effects.

    No better reason for this opinion is provided than by a spokesman of the IPCC itself: in an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say
    clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”

    When further prompted by Bernhard Pötter, the interviewer: „So far, when discussing foreign aid, people usually equate it with charity“, to which Edenhofer replied: „That will change immediately as soon as global emission rights are distributed. …“

    Estimates of the carbon trading market were reported by Joanne Nova quoting Commissioner Bart Chilton, head of the energy and environmental markets advisory committee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with his prediction that “I can see
    carbon trading being a $2 trillion market,” which other quoted sources describe as “the largest commodity market in the world.”

    Edenhofer continued: “…When that happens on a per capita basis, then Africa is the big winner, and large sums will flow there. This has enormous consequences for foreign aid policy. And, of course, the question arises whether these countries would at all be capable of using so much money wisely.”

    Why politicians have dreamed up a ‘man-made climate disaster’ knowing quite well of this distinction, is widely recorded elsewhere and beyond this brief comment, but it’s quite understandable why developing nations resist now being cajoled by yet another financial jamboree to help finance that climate fairy-tale.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service