Has dead aid taken on a green hue?
Peter Hoskin 3:08pm
We've got £800 million to spare, haven't we? Don't be so cynical – of course we do. After all, it's the amount of UK cash that Gordon Brown is prepared to sign over to a new £10 billion climate change fund that he's proposing. The idea is that the money can be used to encourage poorer countries to move towards greener economies. Brilliant.
More seriously, I'd have thought that the money would be better spent on developing those green technologies which could create jobs and clean up the environment, both home and away. Especially as we don't have much money to spare, and this fund contains so much potential for waste. After all, will it make any real difference when set against the richer countries who are the main emission offenders? And, payment by results or not, will it do anything to fundamentally change the long-term views and actions of those poorer countries which regard the climate change agenda as a hindrance to their overall economic development? I have my doubts.
In the end, you worry that this £10 billion fund will become the green equivalent of Dead Aid.



Previous







Billericay Dave
November 27th, 2009 3:26pm Report this commentI have the strange feeling Gormless is about to save the world from global warming only because it has 'GLOBAL' in the title, maybe if we tell him the UK debt he has run up is a 'GLOBAL' debt he will save us from that.
Stepney
November 27th, 2009 3:57pm Report this commentOh yippee. Show McStalin a problem and his knee jerk reaction is throw some more of our money at it.
There. Done. Problem solved. Where's the applause?
John Levett
November 27th, 2009 3:59pm Report this commentLook at the counter in the top right-hand corner. We haven't got £800m to spare. I suggest that all those who subscribe to this giant con trick put their hands in their pockets and put their money where their mouths are.
Does anybody know how much the western world has paid to the developing world over the decades? Despite this aid (and thanks in many cases to the corruption of their leaders) many of the poorer countries still cannot produce enough food or clean water for their needs. But Brown pretends that they're going to develop 'low-carbon' energy solutions!
If this happens at all, it will be slush money to stop the developing world from using oil. Green idealism has been hijacked by corporate interests and the result will be responsible for millions of deaths in the developing world.
David Ossitt
November 27th, 2009 4:07pm Report this comment“We've got £800 million to spare, haven't we?”
This gormless stupid oaf, this Marxist lummox, wants to give £800 million to help solve a problem that does not actually exist.
But if it did exist, there is not one chance in a trillion, that mankind could do anything about it.
Hawkeye
November 27th, 2009 4:17pm Report this commentThat money is far, far better spent here in the UK were we have a bigger impact on the environment (per head of population) than the 3rd world.
If Gordon really wants his money to have an effect then he should split it between the US and China who, between them, emit around half the world's greenhouse gas.
Hawkeye
November 27th, 2009 4:23pm Report this comment"... thanks in many cases to the corruption of their leaders) many of the poorer countries still cannot produce enough food or clean water for their needs."
Time for a new colonialism. We in the west could do a much better job of running these countries providing we do not repeat the mistakes of apartheid and other such stupid social policies that we tried out last time.
Compared to the corruption that these regimes exhibit, our colonial administrations were staggeringly honest.
Ahh... the good ol' days and an Empire on which the sun never sets....
Number7
November 27th, 2009 4:41pm Report this commentIt's only to be expected - as part of his Scotched Earth Policy!
Coeur de Lion
November 27th, 2009 4:41pm Report this commentCoeur de Lion
Just a minor rant, oft times repeated, but your 'pollution' picture above is of power station cooling towers emanating water vapour. A mistake often made by arts graduates.
Stepney
November 27th, 2009 4:49pm Report this commentWell said that man! Cooling towers let off steam and yet the media persist in using them as the visual stimulus for anything to do with Climate change. That or a polar bear.
Eugh. Nasty creatures.
Pete Hoskin
November 27th, 2009 4:51pm Report this commentGuy Liardet: In my defence, I didn't choose the picture! (But I am an arts graduate...)
Marcher Baron
November 27th, 2009 5:04pm Report this commentThe Aussies have the right approach to green issues; 5 liberals have resigned over supporting Rudd's ETS proposal on the grounds that it's totally flawed.
James
November 27th, 2009 5:12pm Report this commentMore money given by poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
Swiss bankers must be rubbing their hands in glee.
Flemingcrag
November 27th, 2009 5:13pm Report this commentWould the £800 million not be better spent on flood defences at home. The people of Cumbria were promised a £1 million in emergency relief by Gordon, that wouldn't build a rope bridge over the Derwent.
All this money going in "carbon trading" is just another "weapon of financial destruction" to rival Credit Default Swaps and the like. Most of the money will end up in the hands of the money spinners who pocketed all our savings from our High Street accounts as the banks played casino carnage with them.
Tom Pride
November 27th, 2009 5:37pm Report this commentOkay, so you have changed the picture, but, CO2 at ambient temperatures is a gas that you cannot see- like oxygen or nitrogen or carbon monoxide. But, if you cool it, it becomes a white solid (dry ice) which you can have fun with by chucking it into water (gloves please!). You need a picture of a concert with a dry ice machine in full operation. Water vapour condensing on cold CO2 so kind of okay.
Or how about a forest or meadow where the plant life is making use of this most precious resource as one of the components for photosynthesis? Or is that too positive an image?
Alan Scott
November 27th, 2009 5:52pm Report this commentAh Hawkeye!
You may not know how much we old retired underpaid Colonial pensioners would like to return to our kerosene-lamped, straw-roofed, rat-haunted, kerosene-fridged,houses, with our children delivered by fine assistant medical practitioners, at £5 a week in 1958, where we truly believed we were doing a dedicated, incorruptible and reasonable job, unhindered by phoney imperialist apologists, feminists, equality pushers, multiculturalist apologists, etc. And I venture to say that, looking at my files of letters over many years from the "natives" as they are now disobligingly named - we knew them as people with individual existences and families -I think they were and are understanding and appreciative.
They don't seem to appreciate the level of corruption and poverty which their present rulers oblige them with.
Now, let's have the usual revisionist and self-flagellating bunch to comment.
Jupiter
November 27th, 2009 6:17pm Report this commentThere is no global warming or have you Speccie guys forgotten about the University of East Anglia scandal already?
Snowman
November 27th, 2009 6:45pm Report this commentcome on, be generous in this season of goodwill, just think of the many millionaires that this money will create in the developing countries.
TGF UKIP
November 27th, 2009 8:25pm Report this commentAnd so the Speccie hacks continue to post as if the CRU conspiracy had never surfaced.
Pursuing as ever the village media agenda and tactics with any story the village wants to see buried - ignore it.
Hawkeye
November 27th, 2009 9:22pm Report this comment@Alan Scott - Wow! What an idyllic lifestyle. No wonder you want to get back to it.
Watt Tyler
November 27th, 2009 9:32pm Report this commentJupiter
They haven't forgotten about it.
They choose to deny it.
And we keep paying through the nose for it.
Fergus Pickering
November 28th, 2009 3:26am Report this commentMarcher Baron, not five liberals but five Liberals i.e. Conservatives. In Australia a Liberal isn't liberal. But perhps you knew that.
TomTom
November 28th, 2009 7:22am Report this commentSo Brown is going to raise this Fund by cancelling the MPs Pension Fund and making them use SIPPs, and having Ministers fly economy to fund his aid for the Third World.
Victor Southern
November 28th, 2009 9:34am Report this commentThe emission levels in most poor countries must be as near zero as makes no difference. I suspect the carbon dioxide emissions of the whole of Uganda would be about the same as those of Wigan.
Does Brown seriously think that if we send some money to Ethiopia they will stop burning natural fuels and simply freeze to death in the mountainous areas in winter? How will they use the money to curb their tiny emissions? Should they slaughter their cattle and starve?
I am sure that the carbon footprint of all those delegates and journalists going to Copenhagen would dwarf the emissions for a year of Lesotho.
IMC
November 28th, 2009 11:45am Report this commentWhy should the government give our money in this way? Why don't those who believe in "green development" (presumably this would include government ministers) invest their own money in this? It is very easy to be moral when the money is not your own.
MaxSceptic
November 28th, 2009 12:21pm Report this commentHugo Rifkind's rant in this week's Speccie seems to equate 'Climate Change Denial' with incest.
We sceptics are obviously winning...
Verity
November 29th, 2009 1:42pm Report this commentHere is an excellent post by James Delingpole in The Telegraph. Comments from readers are also v good. Well worth a read.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018236/climategate-the-conservative-backlash-begins/
Verity
November 29th, 2009 1:53pm Report this commentHawkeye - I don't know whether you were being ironic, but I'm not, when I suggest that we (Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, NZ) simply annex these stupid countries and run them for them. Obviously, the fees for this service would be immense, but they would still be better off, with clean water, not much AIDS, no TB because we would outlaw spitting, etc., than futzing around trying to run themselves and being a bloody nuisance.
Back to top