Wed. April 01, 2015 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...
04/15/2015: Galina Starovoitova Fellowship on Human Rights and Conflict Resolution 2015-16 More
04/15/2015: China's Foreign Policy in a New Era of Sino-Latin American Relations More
03/31/2015: South Asia Consultation on Maternal Health: Regional Dialogue and Way Forward More
03/31/2015: Event Summary: Climate Change Adaptation, Urban Planning, and the Private Sector in Colombia More
03/31/2015: Globalization in a time of turmoil: A conversation with Prime Minister Stefan Löfven of Sweden More
03/30/2015: Xi Jinping’s challenge is to be strong enough to loosen control More
03/30/2015: A Conversation with the President of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete More
03/30/2015: A Path to Win the War on Pollution? Environmental Law Reform in China More
03/30/2015: China 1945 / U.S.-China 2015 More
03/30/2015: A cautious hope for the future of Afghanistan More
03/30/2015: A cautious hope for the future of Afghanistan More
03/30/2015: Assessing U.S. Sanctions: Impact, Effectiveness, Consequences More
03/30/2015: Hafu: The Mixed-Race Experience in Japan More
03/30/2015: Showing a new way forward? Implications of Mexico’s pledge for global climate action More
03/30/2015: Showing a new way forward? Implications of Mexico’s pledge for global climate action More
03/30/2015: Trade and the digital economy: Opportunities for U.S.-Japan global leadership More
03/30/2015: Cato Institute Welcomes New CEO More
03/30/2015: Why are interest rates so low? More
03/30/2015: Inaugurating a new blog More
03/30/2015: “The European Time” of China’s Overseas Investment More
03/30/2015: American and Japanese scholars view China's security and foreign policies More
03/30/2015: American and Japanese scholars view China's security and foreign policies More
03/29/2015: Arvind Subramanian: Beginning a New Era: India’s Union Budget 2015-16 More
03/27/2015: Island Communities: Resilience in the Face of Climate Change More
03/27/2015: Throw the Bums Out More
03/27/2015: Increasing Transparency at the IAEA Archives More
03/27/2015: Can the U.S. Have Normal Diplomatic Relations with Cuba? More
03/27/2015: New leadership on climate as Mexico launches its National Contribution for climate deal in Paris More
03/27/2015: New leadership on climate as Mexico launches its National Contribution for climate deal in Paris More
03/27/2015: IDB creates new institution for private sector operations More
03/27/2015: What does China having the largest GDP mean? More
03/27/2015: Politico Presents …. Washington Lobbyists! More
03/27/2015: Afghanistan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah lays out clear parameters for future negotiations with Taliban More
03/27/2015: How about Spending Cuts Instead of Sanders's War Tax? More
03/27/2015: What do the China Development Forum, Lee Kuan Yew, and the World Bank have in common? More
03/27/2015: FEMA Tells Oklahoma to Do the Impossible ... Or Else More
03/27/2015: Missile defense and South Korea: President Park’s strategic ambiguity is warranted More
03/27/2015: Missile defense and South Korea: President Park’s strategic ambiguity is warranted More
03/26/2015: Saudi Arabia Forms a Pan-Arab Sunni Alliance Against the Houthis More
03/26/2015: Nudging Our Way towards Energy Efficiency: Psychology, Behavior and the Environment More
03/26/2015: New Research Examines History of National Debt Policies More
03/26/2015: Experts weigh in (part 2): How does ISIS approach Islamic scripture? More
03/26/2015: U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue: A Progress Report More
03/26/2015: Abenomics' Progress in Reforming Japan's Economy: Panel I More
03/26/2015: Abenomics' Progress in Reforming Japan's Economy: Panel II More
03/26/2015: Abenomics' Progress in Reforming Japan's Economy: Keynote by Heizo Takenaka More
03/26/2015: Abenomics' Progress in Reforming Japan's Economy: Panel III More
03/26/2015: Who Holds Euro Assets? We Still Don't Know More
03/26/2015: Dreier Roundtable keynotes focus on bridging immigration divide in Washington More
03/26/2015: Why U.S. airstrikes in Tikrit are good for the U.S. and Iraq More
More...
About | Contact Us | Support Us | Terms and Conditions

All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2002 - 2015