Who then should pay? John Kerry, America’s climate envoy, has announced a plan to encourage firms from the rich world with green aspirations to pay to shut polluting power plants in poor countries. In return, the firms would receive credits that would allow them to declare themselves “carbon neutral”.
But corporate munificence is unlikely to suffice. The solution is to attract more private investment. Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, has proposed a scheme to that end involving the. Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, has voiced his support for it. The fund would issue $500bn in “special drawing rights” —a kind of low-cost sovereign overdraft—which would be commingled with funds raised from private investors, reducing the overall cost of capital.
A better idea is to use public money to “derisk” projects funded largely by private capital. Investors often demand much higher returns on ventures in the developing world, because they consider them so perilous. A solar farm in cloudy Germany needs to earn only 7% to win funding, according to the Climate Policy Initiative, a research institute, whereas a similar project in sunny Egypt requires a forbidding 28%.
Public investment can help reduce this risk premium. That is the logic behind Just Energy Transition Partnerships, pacts between a group of Western countries and individual poor ones, that aim to speed the. The first such deal was struck with South Africa last year. The second, with Indonesia, was announced this week. It hopes to mobilise $10bn of private funding to go with $10bn of public money. Such focused coalitions provide clarity for investors and so make borrowing cheaper.
Transfers from rich to poor countries are only fair, since the rich world is responsible for the majority of global emissions. They are also essential, since most of the current flow comes from poor and middle-income countries. But the focus should be less on how much rich governments give and more on how much poor countries get, thanks to private investment. That is the best way to keep the scary numbers at bay.
You said it...'Public money should be spent in the public arena'.. Full transparency. This definitely will help Canadians to be more aware so we can trust our government more.
Fuck that. If public money is going to be used to 'derisk' then the public should get an ownership stake in the company. I'm sick of my tax dollars bailing companies that barely even pay taxes out
… 🤗
We pay the bills for your rich clients incompetence? Dream on.
Or…encourage energy independence, free market capitalism and reduce heavy handed regulation that causes humanitarian crises?
We need to do away with the 1% illegitimately owning the 99%. Period.
Without public funding, private funding even exists.
Hey, ivory tower guy. Poor countries don't care about climate change. They care about eating, staying warm, and surviving. If you care about poor countries then make energy cheap.
Yes by inviting Trudeau to all/any summit! He always doles out millions while Canada crumbles under his leadership.
What about the fact that Qatar, a major oil exporter, spend 200 BILLIONS $ and kill more than 6000 poor migrant workers for 2 weeks of sport instead of helping with the damages caused by the oil they pumped !
News Story Translation: Nations will attract private capital to poor nations to help them find ways of pilfering whatever value they can get from the poorer nation. In the end, no change for the climate will have been done.
There is no climate change it’s a fu king hoax a lie to rip off people
It's not the government's money, it's the taxpayers.
United Kingdom United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: nottslive - 🏆 96. / 52 Read more »
Source: BBCScienceNews - 🏆 87. / 53 Read more »
Source: BritishVogue - 🏆 14. / 80 Read more »
Source: TIME - 🏆 93. / 53 Read more »
Source: Daily_Record - 🏆 9. / 89 Read more »