Home Climate Change Climate Finance - But We're Already Spending Hundreds Of Billions For The...

Climate Finance – But We’re Already Spending Hundreds Of Billions For The Poor Countries



As we all knew it would the climate change thing is coming down to money. Specifically, when do other people get more of ours? The problem with this being that we’re already spending hundreds of billions on sorting out climate change for all those poor folks in the poor countries out there:

Taxes on international transport could provide new flows of finance to developing countries to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of climate breakdown, a group of climate finance experts have said.

Rich countries are failing on their pledge to provide $100bn a year to help poor countries cope with the climate crisis, and the way in which climate finance is organised needs urgent reform, the six academics argue in an article in the journal Nature Climate Change.

That article is here:

At the 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations, lagging action by the world’s wealthier nations on reducing emissions led developing countries to threaten to walk out. Their demand was a major promise of funding to help them cope with climate impacts and to do the work of reducing or avoiding emissions1. In response, developed nations committed to provide “scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding” to meet “a goal of mobilizing jointly US$100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries”2. However, this US$100 billion per year climate finance promise had deep flaws, making it impossible to now assess whether it has been met. The original pledge stated that “this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance”2, but specified no rules on what could be counted in those categories. As we embark upon a pivotal decade ahead for climate change, there is opportunity to take stock of what has come to pass since Copenhagen on climate finance and develop a functional post-2020 model.

OK, excellent, so let us start to work out what should indeed be included as part of that aid.

We should so start by reminding ourselves of the economic basics here. The poor countries need to have a method of generating more power. The process of their becoming not poor requires this.

If fossil fuels are the cheap method then that won’t beat climate change. If renewables are the cheap method then their new power stations won’t cost more than fossil, they’ll be cheaper.

So, making renewables cheap is part and parcel of that climate finance.

We can go further too, insist that all we need to do is power civilisation without fossil fuels and we’re done. So, cheap renewables solves the problem entirely.

Now think about what the rich countries have been doing. We’ve spent a couple of decades now subsidising solar and wind. Germany has spent at least a trillion doing so. The argument for the subsidy was that there are economies of scale – plus technological development from scale – and so we need to subsidise to get over the hump. Once we’ve done so then renewables are the cheap option and climate change is solved. That is, ludicrous solar feed in tariffs are part of the solution.

At which point, following that logic, then all the subsidy to renewablesd in hte rich world have been part of that climate finance. They’re what has made renewables cheap enough that they are the installation of preference. They’re all available at cheaper than fossil to the poor countries. That is indeed climate finance, that’s climate aid.

Which gives us our correct answer. When importuned by some poor country politician over climate finance we just respond “We already gave at the office”.



  1. The weakness of this argument is that renewables are not a substitute for fossil fuels. Power must be plentiful, reliable and cheap. Renewables aren’t even cheap when you add in the extra transmission lines and backup. Of course if you just built the backup you could do it – but that’s just another way of saying ‘Use fossil fuels.’

    Of course if you read the Third World demands a little more carefully, you could conclude that they consider all the climate bullshit to be bullshit. And in return for pretending to take our deluded nonsense seriously they demand a bribe of at least $100 billion a year.

    Needless to say I don’t think we should give them a penny. Especially of MY money.

  2. I’ve done some work for NERSA the National Energy Regulator of South Africa and the strike price for renewables is roughly five times higher than coal. Fracking is banned because you know, nature, and another nuclear reactor would have bankrupted the entire country since Putin would have had to charge 500 per cent more to pay off all the crooked politicians.

    Developing countries do not need unreliable renewables. We need to know that electricity will be there when we flip the switch. The cheap myth is only valid once all the huge subsidies, paid by the consumer, are deducted from the cost of generation.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

So Let’s Have An Elitist Technocracy Instead!

There's been a certain amount - OK, a lot - of squealing in the US about how democracy is the ultimate value and we...

Recent comments