Mon. May 30, 2016 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
ANNOUNCEMENTS
THE WORLD'S DISCUSSING...
05/30/2016: Risky routes: Energy transit in the Middle East More
05/29/2016: Reflections on the World Humanitarian Summit with the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator More
05/27/2016: Banter #222: Tamra Ryan on the Women’s Bean Project More
05/27/2016: How to help close the tax gap More
05/27/2016: Child poverty in America is not a global embarrassment More
05/27/2016: Too Bad the Portman-Strickland Senate Race Has Turned into a China-Bashing Free-For-All More
05/27/2016: Africa in the news: Nigeria establishes flexible exchange rate, Kenya reaffirms plan to close Dabaab refugee camp, and AfDB meetings focus on energy needs More
05/27/2016: If US Won't Take More Syrian Refugees, Extend Trade Agreements to Those Who Do More
05/27/2016: Will ISIS and al-Qaida always be rivals? More
05/27/2016: Will ISIS and al-Qaida always be rivals? More
05/27/2016: Trade on Trial, Again More
05/27/2016: Overcoming barriers to a European digital single market More
05/26/2016: The incoherence of sustainability More
05/26/2016: Is there a shortcut to development for the Western Balkans? More
05/26/2016: Walk the line: The United States between Israel and the Palestinians More
05/26/2016: Long-range stand-off does not make sense, nor do its proposed numbers More
05/26/2016: Long-range stand-off does not make sense, nor do its proposed numbers More
05/26/2016: Long-range stand-off does not make sense, nor do its proposed numbers More
05/26/2016: Long-range stand-off does not make sense, nor do its proposed numbers More
05/26/2016: Hutchins Roundup: Labor market mobility, family disadvantage, and more More
05/26/2016: Hutchins Roundup: Labor market mobility, family disadvantage, and more More
05/26/2016: MSNBC's Morning Joe Whitewashes Bob Gates' Legacy More
05/26/2016: Voice, Exit, and Liberty: The Effect of Emigration on Origin Country Institutions More
05/26/2016: America's Doomed China Strategy More
05/26/2016: NATO Assesses Ukraine and Invites Montenegro: Who's Afraid of Vladimir Putin? More
05/26/2016: Blood and faith in Afghanistan: A June 2016 update More
05/26/2016: Blood and faith in Afghanistan: A June 2016 update More
05/26/2016: Blood and faith in Afghanistan: A June 2016 update More
05/25/2016: What might the drone strike against Mullah Mansour mean for the counterinsurgency endgame? More
05/25/2016: What might the drone strike against Mullah Mansour mean for the counterinsurgency endgame? More
05/25/2016: Monetary policy and financial stability More
05/25/2016: Monetary policy and financial stability More
05/25/2016: Behavioral interventions to increase tax-time saving: Evidence from a national randomized trial More
05/25/2016: Testimony before the European Parliament, Committee on International Trade More
05/25/2016: A Portrait in Courage More
05/25/2016: Don't Dilute Libertarianism Just to Beat Donald Trump More
05/25/2016: Is China Really That Dangerous? More
05/25/2016: For Southwest Corridor, Buses Would Be Better, Cheaper Than Light Rail More
05/24/2016: Affordable Care Encourages Healthy Living: Theory and Evidence from China's New Cooperative Medical Scheme More
05/24/2016: Dear Progressives: Using Uber Doesn't Make You a Monster More
05/24/2016: What Republicans for Trump Are Telling Me More
05/24/2016: A preview of the eighth U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue More
05/24/2016: How do we end energy poverty? More
05/24/2016: Show me the money: Fiscal and financial fundamentals of 21st century city governance More
05/24/2016: The U.S.-Saudi Arabia counterterrorism relationship More
05/24/2016: Not-so-great expectations: The G-7’s waning role in global economic governance More
05/24/2016: Implementing the European Union's Digital Single Market Strategy More
05/24/2016: Realism Restrained: the Washington Playbook Strikes Back More
05/24/2016: Hate Speech Laws: Ratifying the Assassin’s Veto More
05/24/2016: The European Union's Digital Single Market Strategy: A conflict between government's desire for certainty and rapid marketplace innovation More
More...
About | Contact Us | Support Us | Terms and Conditions

All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2002 - 2016