The unwanted equation: poverty vs climate change
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The proposed Copenhagen climate treaty has plenty of jargon – "mitigation" and "adaptation" are two examples already given. But the key word may yet turn out to be "additionality".
Additionality means that finance provided to help developing countries deal with climate change is entirely on top of the aid sums they receive from the rich West to help them with their development – with agriculture, poverty relief, health and education. They fear that, without this guarantee, when the rich states have to start providing huge sums of climate finance under the treaty, they will simply divert their aid flows, and that money that once went to schools and hospitals will be switched, for example, to windfarms. But although additionality is hinted at in the EU proposals, it is not guaranteed – which could be a deal-breaker in December.
"Even the poorest countries are aware that if the money is coming from future aid commitments, it's forcing them to choose between building flood defences and sea walls, and building schools and hospitals," said Oxfam's Robert Bailey. "And that's not a trade-off that's going to be acceptable.
"Why should they sign a deal that gives with one hand and takes away with another? If there's no new money, there'll be no deal," Mr Bailey said.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
The climate scam is all about big business preserving natural resources for itself and eliminating the competition from emergent countries. In future, aid (aka 'bribes')will only be given to countries provided that they deny themselves the means to develop.
It's win-win for the politicians: their rich corporate friends get richer and provide them with better-rewarded sinecures, the poorest remain the poorest and the rest of us provide the funds with ever more taxes and artificially inflated energy prices.
Meanwhile, the climate will change as it has always done.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/g
Co2 is not a poison, don't believe me watch 'Jimmys Food Factory Whats in My Sandwich' on BBC iplayer - A tomato farmer in England pumps all his Co2 by product in to his tomato green house.
A) he is able to work in the green house all day with no adverse affects to his health
B) he grows the best tomatoes this side if the English channel.
P.S.
Dear Michael McCarthy/The Independent
Is it not about time you started reporting the truth about climate change, do you really think that this con can be kept up forever?
And guess what the west will be deplete of moneys once they start to tackle climate adaption in their backyard.
Who is going to clean up the nuclear plants on the coast now. There has not been a peep about this with the firming up of sea level rises.
Were in for nightmare future.
We can't carry on ignoring the poverty and suffering in this world, we could have ended world hunger many times over with the money we spent on bailing out the bankers.