Citola Blog
Hot Air's Cause And Effect
Here’s a conundrum for you. How come climate change debate generates so much hot air?
A benevolent interpretation of recent events is that the United Nations (UN) cannot be faulted for its earnest intent. As the UN, bless its ethically produced cotton socks, hosts a new round of discussions in New York, we find ourselves wondering just where its discussions are going to take us.
The topic in hand is a familiar one: the raising of finance for developing counties to grow in a climate-friendly way. The High Level Advisory Group on financing this type of development with have former British premier Gordon Brown in attendance, along with the new energy minister, Christopher Huhne. The US administration is sending one of its leading financial boffins, Larry Summers, and the benign and patriarchal presence of billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros will also grace the talks.
But what will this gathering of the great and the good get up to? As we’ve reported before, there’s broad agreement that the industrialised countries will have to stump up $30 billion to help the lesser-developed along the path they want them to take. However, we’ve already seen some grants being re-classified as loans, and the general smoke-and-mirrors nonsense that accompanies high-budget accounting.
At the heart of the issue is whether taxing countries using carbon-intensive industrial processes and styles of consumption (or penalising or disincentivising in some other way) would simply inhibit trade. And all this comes at a time when the developed countries, who have to provide the cash, are struggling to stimulate their economies out of the global recession that threatens us all.
So much of the analysis – and much of the debate in these smart talking shops – is dominated by the views of the developed world. One of the sanest views we’ve seen is the perspective of what the emerging economies need. This is, in essence, a bit of carbon “breathing space” – in simple terms, the right to be a bit dirty, and just get on with it. The argument runs that ecological refinement can come a little later, once mouths have been fed and poverty alleviated.
The circularity of so much of the debate is well illustrated by this paper, which argues, broadly speaking, that economic activity is both the problem and the solution.
Whatever else, we believe that avoided deforestation (REDD) and reforestation is most definitely part of the solution, not the problem. And we will continue promoting forestry as part of the solution.
Post new comment