The
BBC has an interesting article (thx DB!) on an east-west split within the EU on financing adaptation under a potential international climate agreement.
On climate change, the EU is keen to reach a united position ahead of December's United Nations Copenhagen summit, which aims to hammer out a new global climate treaty to replace the UN Kyoto Protocol.
Mr Reinfeldt called on EU leaders to agree a "fixed sum" that would open the way for other rich donors like the US and Japan to make similar aid pledges to help developing nations cope with the effects of climate change.
But just hours before the talks, Hungarian Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai said sharing the aid costs equally between all 27 EU nations was out of the question. "The burden-sharing proposal is not acceptable in its current form," Mr Bajnai said.
The Polish finance minister, Jacek Rostowski, told the BBC that nine Eastern European nations were ready to block a deal unless they were allowed to contribute according to their means, not to how much they pollute.
"There are countries there like Bulgaria and Latvia, which are considerably poorer than Brazil, and which would be expected to help Brazil in its adjustments to climate change," he said.
This is not the first time that
eastern Europe has proven problematic in EU climate policy. But just wait until it comes time for the US to discuss how much money it is going to send overseas as a part of a climate deal. I can't imagine a situation in which this does not become a political lightning rod in the US -- regardless of the policy merits of doing so. (And to be perfectly clear about my views, I wrote in 1998 that the climate "winners" of the world have an obligation to help the climate "losers" -
PDF - this post is about the politics of the issue.). Yvo de Boer, head of the UN FCCC
helpfully explains that:
“Money, in fact, is the oil that encourages commitment and drives action”
Money also get the attention of voters, especially when you are reaching into their pockets to take it and then sending it to someone else. And in the United States, sending money overseas has never been politically popular, and I don't expect that it will be in the context either. I'll award a prize to the first person who can provide a quote from a U.S. elected official (POTUS, VP or anyone in Congress) advocating sending money overseas as part of a climate deal.
8 comments:
Bugaria?
Is that something Bee-toven wrote?
:)
-1-Good catch! Thanks!
It would be compelling to help other countries out with problems.. whether or not they were caused by climate change. Should we not fund help for the next typhoon, earthquake or flood because we don't know if it were caused by climate change?
But, that's right, I forgot our economy is doing so well we have plenty of bucks to do both.
I know that the "stimulus" bill sent money to Palestinian terrorists. If the current administration can give money to foreign terrorists and claim it is helping the US economy, I'm sure they would be willing to give money to foreign governments and call it "saving the planet" from climate change.
This seems to fit your challenge, though Congressman Butterfield certainly buries the proposal in a lot of waffle.
http://butterfield.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=63§iontree=4,63
-5-RWP
Thanks. I agree that it is in line with what i am asking for, but I'm looking for something a bit more direct and unambiguous!
Americans have no problem with foreign aid if it's properly justified and directed. The idea that we're going to pay for efficient factories to be built overseas to compete with our own industries is another matter. Of course, that very idea is at the heart of the whole effort. Yet no, you don't hear any politicians taking ownership of it. More magical thinking.
The idea that sending money to a foreign government will improve the lot of that nation's citizens has a lot of counter examples. It's pretty well guaranteed that the bulk of the money will end up in off shore banks with strong secrecy provisions. Private investment is a different story, but it won't happen unless there is a legal system strong enough to satisfy foreign investors that their investment won't be seized.
Post a Comment