Who will pay for climate change? - Copenhagen
That's reportedly the big question at Copenhagen right now. Yesterday there was the leak of the "Danish text" - purportedly an early draft of what could be the final climate agreement at Copenhagen as prepared by unnamed representatives from rich countries. The text was so unacceptable to delegates from developing countries that they took to the streets. (And, they weren't the only ones that were mad: it also cost Leah an interview!) But why?
It comes down to rich vs. poor (developed vs. developing). Big, rich countries like the US emit lots of carbon and, importantly, have done so for a very long time. But, they're also leading the charge into reducing emissions. Less wealthy developing countries, like many of those in the African delegation, are just getting to the point of economic productivity where they're going to start needing more and more electricity. But they're not yet to the point where they have whole industries dedicated to reducing emissions. Additionally, when the climate change s**t hits the climate change fan - developing countries expect they'll be the worse off with the least resources to deal with it.
Back to the "Danish text". What made this so offensive to developing countries was that it treated rich and poor countries equally. Or at least more equally than was palatable. And we're all about equality right? No, not at Copenhagen we're not. A group of 123 developing countries calling themselves the "G77 plus China"(...I don't know how the math works) want developed countries to make bigger cuts in emissions and to pledge a sizable chunk of money to help them out in the aforementioned s**t/fan scenario. How much money? The "Danish text" offered $10 billion. The NYTimes reports the number is probably in the hundreds of billions.
All of this to say - the debate about how to tackle climate change seems to have quickly become about footing the bill.
Recently on the Current News Blog:
- Obama lays out plan for jobs; Meeting lawmakers tomorrow
- Photography in conflict: Jeff Antebi covers the Afghanistan election
- Iran students' day of protest
- Copenhagen backgrounder - A roundup of pre-conference reading
- Will TARP cuts mean a jobs program? - Real Recovery
It comes down to rich vs. poor (developed vs. developing). Big, rich countries like the US emit lots of carbon and, importantly, have done so for a very long time. But, they're also leading the charge into reducing emissions. Less wealthy developing countries, like many of those in the African delegation, are just getting to the point of economic productivity where they're going to start needing more and more electricity. But they're not yet to the point where they have whole industries dedicated to reducing emissions. Additionally, when the climate change s**t hits the climate change fan - developing countries expect they'll be the worse off with the least resources to deal with it.
Back to the "Danish text". What made this so offensive to developing countries was that it treated rich and poor countries equally. Or at least more equally than was palatable. And we're all about equality right? No, not at Copenhagen we're not. A group of 123 developing countries calling themselves the "G77 plus China"(...I don't know how the math works) want developed countries to make bigger cuts in emissions and to pledge a sizable chunk of money to help them out in the aforementioned s**t/fan scenario. How much money? The "Danish text" offered $10 billion. The NYTimes reports the number is probably in the hundreds of billions.
All of this to say - the debate about how to tackle climate change seems to have quickly become about footing the bill.
Recently on the Current News Blog:
- Obama lays out plan for jobs; Meeting lawmakers tomorrow
- Photography in conflict: Jeff Antebi covers the Afghanistan election
- Iran students' day of protest
- Copenhagen backgrounder - A roundup of pre-conference reading
- Will TARP cuts mean a jobs program? - Real Recovery
