Frog on Aid and Climate Change

A curious post on Frog Blog. They claim that rich countries will have to boost the US$100billion a year we give to the developing world by up to 100% in order to get a deal on climate change.

The rationale is “countries such as Bangladesh, or regions such as the Sahel and the Caribbean, contributed little to global emissions – so would not be significant players in a carbon market – but were expected to suffer disproportionately from climate change; and their support would be needed for a global deal”.

Now let us think about this. These countries will be some of the hardest hit by climate change, and won’t be negatively impacted by a carbon market as they contribute little, yet despite this they will blackmail the rest of the rest of the world into not agreeing to a global deal, unless they get more money.

I have a simple response to that: No.

The fact their countries will be hit hardest by climate change should be reason enough to agree to a deal. They’ll be spiting themselves if they block a deal. Plus if they are such small carbon emitters anyway, then do a deal without them. You really only need the major emitters.

Wikipedia doesn’t seem to have a list of overall carbon emissions, but for CO2 only emissions. The top 20 countries (if you count EU as one country) contribute 89.7% of emissions. Those 20 need to agree, the other 100+ should not be allowed to block a deal.

Incidentally I actually favour increasing overseas aid, where it can be tied to good governance etc. But I reject being blackmailed to increase overseas aid as the price for a deal on climate change.