Sat. September 20, 2014 Get Published  Get Alerts
HOME  |LOGIN
ABOUT | CONTACT US | SUPPORT US
Climate Smart Aid Is Anything But

Comments(0)
By William Yeatman

International organizations like the World Bank and the United Nations are supposed to help the world’s poor escape poverty, but fully convinced they are doing good, these development agencies are pushing an anti-development agenda.

Now here’s an inconvenient truth: curbing the planet’s carbon footprint necessarily slows economic growth, the primary engine of human well-fare. International aid organizations need to carefully consider the impact of the climate “solutions” they advocate, lest they do more harm than good.

The International Energy Agency estimates that it would cost $45 trillion through 2050 to mitigate global warming through efforts aimed at “greening” the global economy. Most of that would be spent in developing countries, to prevent them from fueling their growing economies with hydrocarbon energy sources like coal and oil. These fossil fuels are cheap and still plentiful, but burning them to create energy frees the CO² they store, contributing to climate change.

Raising hundreds of billions of dollars a year to finance a global green energy revolution is a key component of current negotiations for a successor climate treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas recently declared, “No money, no deal.” And clean energy aid was a topic of discussion at last month’s Major Economies Meeting, hosted by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.

Naturally, international aid agencies are jockeying for position to broker this wealth transfer.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that his organization is the “natural arena” for coordinated international action on climate change. To that end the U.N. operates two programs to facilitate the flow of climate mitigation aid to developing countries—the Global Environment Facility and the Clean Development Mechanism.

Not to be outdone, the World Bank recently unveiled a “Strategic Framework” for global warming and development that calls for “unprecedented global cooperation” for the “transfer of finance and technology from developed to developing countries.” The Bank established a Carbon Finance Unit and several Carbon Investment Funds to distribute climate change mitigation aid.

Besides the inefficiencies inherent to duplicative bureaucracies, there are major problems with this “climate smart” approach to development. For starters, it is unlikely that Western bureaucrats can create a green energy infrastructure in developing countries. The history of development assistance is littered with abandoned projects backed by the best of intentions. Already there is evidence that climate aid is more of the same.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, for example, companies subject to climate regulations can meet their carbon “cap” by paying for emissions reduction projects in developing countries. According to the journal Nature, the U.N. certified $6 billions’ worth of emissions “savings” for reductions in HFC-23, a potent greenhouse gas. Yet removing the HFC-23 cost $130 million. That’s a lot of waste.

There are also ethical considerations. A coal-fired power plant may offend environmentalist sensibilities, but it would be a blessing for the almost 2 billion people in the world today who use charcoal, dung, and wood to heat and cook.

In his book, Global Crises, Global Solutions, Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg persuasively argues that humanity faces many problems that are more pressing than warming decades down the road. After all, what good is a slightly cooler planet a century from now to a child dying of malaria today? In terms of saving lives, Lomborg shows why climate change mitigation is an inferior, albeit far less ‘sexy’, investment to water sanitation and halting disease.

Aid agencies should also consider forgone economic development. The U.N. and the World Bank want to redistribute trillions of dollars to create new green energy infrastructure whereas in the free market these scarce resources would be allocated to create wealth. In a globalized world, inefficiencies of this magnitude lower the tide and all boats with it.

Slowing economic growth has very real human consequences, such as fewer schools, worse health care, and lower environmental quality. That’s why a richer-but-warmer future is better for human well being than a poorer-but-cooler future, according to Indur Goklany, author of The Improving State of the World.

Instead of economically harmful global warming policies, development agencies should concentrate their considerable institutional knowledge on advancing pro-growth policies, like trade liberalization. Today, free trade needs an influential booster like the World Bank. Energy intensive export industries in developing countries are threatened by carbon taxes imposed by rich countries, under the pretext of fighting climate change. Retaliatory tariffs would be likely, which could easily escalate into a global trade war.

That would be a tragedy. By allowing developing countries to use their comparative advantage—inexpensive labor—international free trade has proven the fastest route out of poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

To avoid giving atmospheric chemistry priority over human welfare, the aid industry should ensure that the risks of global warming policies are considered as rigorously as the risks of global warming itself.


William Yeatman is an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.




Comments in Chronological order (0 total comments)

Report Abuse
Quick Links Twitter Face Book Get Alerts Contact Us Enter Ia-Forum Student Award Competition
International Affairs
Forum - (2014 Issue 1)

Available Now
ANNOUNCEMENTS
THE WORLD'S DISCUSSING...
09/29/2014: Three Great Ideas that Weren't on the UNGA Agenda More
09/25/2014: How to Address Child Migration from Central America More
09/22/2014: The Ukraine Crisis: the View from Odessa More
09/20/2014: Is there Hope for Central American Youth? More
09/18/2014: CGD Event: The Impact of Secondary Schooling in Kenya: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis More
09/18/2014: Battle to Save the Export-Import Bank More
09/18/2014: Chile como potencia alimentaria y el desafío chino More
09/18/2014: Development blog: “Degrade, Defeat, and Destroy”—But What Will We Build? More
09/18/2014: What’s Next? Celebrating 20 Years of the Environmental Change and Security Program More
09/18/2014: Pakistan’s Biggest Challenge: Turning Around a Broken Education System More
09/18/2014: Central African Republic: Should the World Pay Attention? More
09/18/2014: The Climate Change Summit: Why Humanitarians Should Pay Attention More
09/18/2014: The Climate Change Summit: Why Humanitarians Should Pay Attention More
09/18/2014: Power Paradox in China and India: Seizing Control to Give It Away More
09/18/2014: The Coalition of Convenience More
09/18/2014: Cato Announces Newly Expanded Center for the Study of Science More
09/18/2014: Top 10 Global Hometowns of America's Foreign Students More
09/18/2014: Revamping Europe’s Tattered Social Contract More
09/18/2014: The Seventh Seoul-Washington Forum: U.S.-Korea-Japan Relations, Unification, and Green Politics More
09/18/2014: The Seventh Seoul-Washington Forum: U.S.-Korea-Japan Relations, Unification, and Green Politics More
09/18/2014: Policy Implications of Autonomous Vehicles More
09/18/2014: Getting Solar Pricing Right More
09/17/2014: Rouhani and the Potential Failure of Nuclear Talks More
09/17/2014: Turkey after the Elections: Identity, Democracy and Foreign Policy More
09/17/2014: Development blog: Should Countries Be More Like Shopping Malls? A Proposal for Service Guarantees for Africa More
09/17/2014: Time to Give Ukraine Defensive Weapons More
09/17/2014: Time to Give Ukraine Defensive Weapons More
09/17/2014: Xi Jinping in India: Is a Breakthrough Possible? More
09/17/2014: A Roundup of Brookings Analysis and Commentary on Scotland's Independence Vote More
09/17/2014: A Roundup of Brookings Analysis and Commentary on Scotland's Independence Vote More
09/17/2014: Brigitte Madrian Testifies to the Senate Committee on Finance More
09/17/2014: Lee Hamilton on the 20th Anniversary of the Environmental Change and Security Program More
09/17/2014: Jane Harman on the 20th Anniversary of the Environmental Change and Security Program More
09/17/2014: Battle to Save the Export-Import Bank More
09/17/2014: Which Boots on the Ground Can We Trust? More
09/17/2014: Event: Pew Research Center Study Release of Views of Trade More
09/17/2014: Pew Research Center Study Release of Views of Trade More
09/17/2014: Not a War on Terror, a War on an Ideology More
09/17/2014: Hans-Werner Sinn: The Euro Trap: On Bursting Bubbles, Budgets, and Belief More
09/17/2014: Why the Pentagon Should Care about Scotland's Referendum More
09/17/2014: Sexual and Reproductive Health as a Barrier to Girls’ Educational Success in South Africa More
09/17/2014: Global Health blog: Obama’s Ebola Response and a Plea from Liberia More
09/17/2014: Pew Research Center Study Release of Views of Trade More
09/17/2014: Paying the Health-Care Piper More
09/17/2014: The Obama Administration's Member-less Coalition against the Islamic State: What Good Are Allies Anyway? More
09/17/2014: Manufacturing Growth and the Lives of Bangladeshi Women More
09/17/2014: Struggles to Protect Free Speech on Our College Campuses Continue More
09/17/2014: Why Obama's War on ISIL Won't Hold Its Popularity More
09/17/2014: The Ties that Bind: The Chinese Misunderstanding of Innovation More
09/16/2014: Los 'mitos' del Procurador en política de drogas More
More...
About | Contact Us | Support Us | Terms and Conditions

All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2002 - 2014