Thu. July 31, 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...
08/05/2014: Putting the South Caucasus in Perspective More
07/30/2014: Guatemalan president: Central America needs at least $2 billion 'to attack the root of the problem' More
07/30/2014: The New Development Bank adds substance to the BRICS More
07/30/2014: NAFTA Rejoinder: The US Effects Are Clearly Positive for Most Workers (Part II) More
07/30/2014: Underage: Addressing Reproductive Health and HIV in Married Adolescents More
07/30/2014: Did Russia Violate 1987 INF Arms Control Treaty? More
07/30/2014: Did Russia Violate 1987 INF Arms Control Treaty? More
07/30/2014: U.S. Trade Rep. Froman: Trade Works for Development when Benefits Broadly Shared More
07/30/2014: The New Deal: A Framework for Moving Beyond Fragility More
07/30/2014: Iran Headlines: Qasem Soleimani on Gaza, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Automobile Production More
07/30/2014: Iran Headlines: Qasem Soleimani on Gaza, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Automobile Production More
07/30/2014: India's Climate Change Policy in a Modi Government More
07/30/2014: The Case Against the 2016 Zero Option for Afghanistan More
07/30/2014: The Case Against the 2016 Zero Option for Afghanistan More
07/30/2014: The Case Against the 2016 Zero Option for Afghanistan More
07/30/2014: Government's Ultimate Power: Executing Americans, with Atrocities More
07/30/2014: Rapid Bus: A Low-Cost, High-Capacity Transit System for Major Urban Areas More
07/30/2014: Dangerously Demagoguing Entitlements More
07/30/2014: A Gendered Approach To Countering Violent Extremism More
07/30/2014: A Gendered Approach To Countering Violent Extremism More
07/29/2014: New Americas Quarterly Released: Higher Education and Competitiveness More
07/29/2014: The Sound of Music Is The Sound of Community Resilience More
07/29/2014: US Tech Firms Face Chinese Hurdles More
07/29/2014: Development blog: Sign Up to Follow CGD’s Latin America Initiative More
07/29/2014: MENA Women's News Brief More
07/29/2014: National Security and Climate Change: What Do We Need to Know? More
07/29/2014: Global Prosperity Wonkcast: CGD Hosts Advocates at Girl Summit Satellite More
07/29/2014: Don’t Forget About Governance: The Risk of Tunnel Vision in Chasing Resilience for Asia’s Cities More
07/29/2014: Dueling Long-Term Projections Highlight Uncertain Trajectory for Health Care Costs More
07/29/2014: India's WTO Problem--A Proposal More
07/29/2014: Ukraine Crisis Reminds Americans Why NATO Should Not Expand: Not to Ukraine, Georgia, Or Anyone Else More
07/29/2014: Growing the Development Dividend: A Conversation with U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman More
07/29/2014: Back in Iraq? More
07/29/2014: A Case against Child Labor Prohibitions More
07/28/2014: Kerry Pushes for Gaza Cease-Fire More
07/28/2014: Why Putin was in Latin America More
07/28/2014: Development blog: My US-Africa Leaders’ Summit Watch List More
07/28/2014: Rethinking US Foreign Assistance: My US-Africa Leaders’ Summit Watch List More
07/28/2014: Border Crisis More
07/28/2014: Europe Should Confront Its Enemies As One Citizenry More
07/28/2014: Europe Should Confront Its Enemies As One Citizenry More
07/28/2014: U.S. Is The Largest But Not The Only Recipient Of Central American Immigrants In Latest Surge More
07/28/2014: Governance of Regional Transit Systems More
07/28/2014: Rethinking US Foreign Assistance: What’s Next for AGOA? Ben Leo Testifies before Congress More
07/28/2014: Rethinking US Foreign Assistance: An AGOA Deliverable for the US-Africa Leaders Summit More
07/28/2014: Pride in Istanbul More
07/28/2014: The Hague Penalizes Russia for Yukos Confiscation More
07/28/2014: NAFTA Rejoinder: The Effects are Positive (Part I) More
07/28/2014: 5 Reasons Why a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Bad Idea More
07/28/2014: The U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit: Africa’s Dramatic Development Story More
More...
About | Contact Us | Support Us | Terms and Conditions

All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2002 - 2014