Rich nations are undermining work to protect poor and vulnerable countries from the impacts of the climate crisis, by providing loans instead of grants, siphoning off money from other aid projects or mislabelling cash, new research suggests.
Only $11.5bn (£9.2bn) of climate finance from rich countries in 2020
Providing $12 billion is undermining.
despite increasing incidences of climate-related disaster
Lie.
Nafkote Dabi, Oxfam’s international climate change policy lead, said this was inadequate given the scale of the problem. “Don’t be fooled into thinking $11.5bn is anywhere near enough for low- and middle-income countries to help their people with more and bigger floods, hurricanes, firestorms, droughts and other terrible harms brought about by climate change,” she said. “People in the US spend four times that each year feeding their cats and dogs.”
Instead of spending your own money on your own pets (who love you), you should be spending that money on ‘Nafkoti Dabi’ (who doesn’t).
Under a promise made by the developed world in 2009 developing countries should have been receiving $100bn a year in climate finance from 2020, made up of funds to help countries adapt to climate impacts and to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. But that pledge has so far gone unmet, with only $83bn provided in 2020.
Reminder that things you vote for in democratic elections and referenda are impossible to deliver, illegal and racist, but “promises” made on your behalf by coke-fuelled twinks in the DFID are solemnly binding on the British-identified government forever.
Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and twice a climate envoy for the UN, led a group of prominent women in writing to the UN at the weekend, asking for a clear “firewall” to be set up between the Cop preparations and UAE’s oil industry.
“So far, UAE hasn’t shown signs of prioritising action to address the impact of climate change on vulnerable people, especially women,”
What a stupid cow.
How many of these “loans” ever get paid back ?
When the Chinese lend an African country money, they invariably end up owning it.
Climate Crisis?
According to UNCTAD’s 2022 World Investment Report, Foreign Direct Investment flows to the Maldives reached USD 443 million in 2021, increasing by 27.3% compared to one year earlier but still well below the three-year average recorded before the pandemic (USD 663 million in 2017-19). In 2021, the total stock of FDI stood at USD 6 billion, representing around 118.3% of the country’s GDP.
Seems like an awful lot of money is tied up in a country that ceased to exist in 2018 (according to the ‘experts’ in 1988) and will again cease to exist in 2050 (according to the ‘experts’ now).
Somehow those who would decry the sentiment of ‘The White Man’s Burden’ by Kipling still however require the white man to fund those countries which have been independent for sixty years.
Grauniad and numbers. Further down it’s $83bn then “only” $24.5bn out of $88bn is pure climate finance without strings attached (a contradiction in terms – if it’s pure climate finance that *is* a string attached to the money).
$24.5bn is a *lot* of money to just give away – $88bn is a vast amount.
Also one may well ask why the Mary Robinson and The Guardian are condemning the UAE and not China which is by far the largest cause of global warming? China’s CO2 emissions are more than 30 times those produced by the oil and gas produced by the UAE … “left-wing/four legs, good, two legs bad”?
When the Chinese lend an African country money, they invariably end up owning it.
What does that actually mean in practice, though? The colonial powers thought they owned these countries. How did that work out for them?
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
So much for the increased danger.
It’s most amusing to give the figure in 1920’s and invite a greenie to guess the figure today. And most of those are due to earthquakes- hardly climate
related.
Probably easier to cope with climate change than try to stop it.
Nauti Nick @ 10.19:
” Probably easier to cope with
climate changenatural climate variability than try to stop it”.That’s better.
‘The colonial powers thought they owned these countries. How did that work out for them?’
These countries now think they own the colonial powers BiS. The Guardian readers agree.
Steve,
She’s Oirish. Same thing.
“with more and bigger floods, hurricanes, firestorms, droughts and other terrible harms”
Haven’t natural disasters been *reducing* as the world gets richer, not increasing?
Ah, I see Nick has made the same point.
@BiS – a good point. It remains to be seen how China’s colonial experiment works out. Lending people money so they can pay you to build infrastructure, which you own when they default seems like quite the wheeze. Until they decide it’s their stuff and they stop paying.
In China’s favour, it is not going to wet its pants if accused of racism and colonialism. I doubt that they have the military capability or the inclination to protect ‘their’ assets.
prioritising action to address the impact of climate change on vulnerable people, especially women
An interesting business opportunity for parasol makers?
@jgh
Not so much that natural disasters have or have not been increasing or decreasing, it’s mainly that all those horrible fossil fuels and that evil nasty capitalist development means that when they do occur, people can get there and help.
Don’t worry though, once we stop using fossil fuels we can go back to the good old days and measure deaths from natural disasters in the hundreds of thousands rather than the thousands.
Under a promise made by the developed world in 2009 developing countries should have been receiving $100bn a year in climate finance from 2020, made up of funds to help countries adapt to climate impacts and to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. But that pledge has so far gone unmet, with only $83bn provided in 2020.
So in the middle of a global pandemic, when the governments shut down the economy, the rich countries still borrowed and have £83bn to the poor countries, and that isn’t enough? Stupid cow.
These countries now think they own the colonial powers
And in our case they’re moving over here en masse to prove the point.
MC said:
“Lending people money so they can pay you to build infrastructure, which you own when they default seems like quite the wheeze. Until they decide it’s their stuff and they stop paying.”
Sounds familiar; anyone remember a canal in Egypt?
$12bn? Loose change! According to an article in Nature Sustainability the ‘Global North’ (whatever that is) owes $170 trillion to the ‘Global South’ for all the CO2 we’ve produced. I won’t be voluntarily paying my share of that!
@ Richard T
Yes, but that wheeze wasn’t involved.
Do you *really* remember it?
Compagnie de Suez built it using capital provided by private shareholders who took all the financial risk (which were significant as they later watched de Lesseps supervise building the Panama Canal)
Yeah, that’s Hickel again. He uses a carbon price of up to $6,000 a tonne.
Sigh.
Which is approximately $12 billion too much for a statistical error that got out of hand. Fortunately, the more the home countries go broke the less that will actually be paid to the whiners.
Does the “Global North” include Russia?
Tractor Gent. The global north is every country above the equator. But the landmass of the Earth is mainly concentrated in the north. So the majority of countries should give liads of money to a small number of countries. Great wee e.
I imagine the problem is the $11.9 billion doesn’t include enough commission?