The most tangible outcome of the climate agreement announced here Friday turned out to be cash….
But money in notable quantities should, in principle, start flowing next year….
The accord calls for the establishment of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support immediate action to help curb emissions and to help communities adapt to the effects of global warming.
An initial, fast-start fund worth $10 billion annually would operate from 2010 to 2012.
For long-term finance, developed countries agreed to support a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
So says the NYT. It is hard to know where these figures come from. The Copenhagen Accord itself does not give figures. Various heads of state, including President Obama, bandied around the $100 billion figure, but Obama did not say what America’s contribution would be, and he made it clear that he expected other countries to make up the difference, which they might or might not do.
Let’s suppose this money comes through. What is it for? One reads the press reports on the Copenhagen meeting in vain for this information; nor do any of the official documents I have seen shed any light on this issue. Consider the following possibilities:
1. The money will go to the countries that experience the worst climate-related harm.
2. The money will go to the poorest countries.
3. The money will go to the poorest countries that experience the worst climate-related harm.
4. The money will finance green energy infrastructure in developing countries.
Each of these possibilities draws on different ideas of justice and pragmatism. The first rests on an idea of corrective justice—those who cause climate change should compensate those who are injured by it. The second reflects distributive justice, but note that it has nothing to do with climate change. Should a very poor country be deprived of resources just because its poverty can’t be traced to climate-related harms? The third principle says yes. The fourth principle is forward-looking and would withhold resources from very poor countries that are not developing and thus cannot use green energy infrastructure—it would in fact reward the fastest-developing countries, meaning those whose people are likely to become wealthier sooner. It is thus in tension with principles 2 and 3.
In fact, none of these principles ought to provide the basis for distribution of the fund. The fund should be used to pay off countries whose participation in a climate treaty is essential but have little interest in participating. Russia is the chief example, but China is a possible example as well. Those countries that care about climate change must compensate large emitters that don’t care or care very little. Countries can continue to provide foreign aid to poor countries as they have done for decades: there is no reason to use a climate treaty as a device for further redistributing wealth.
The contrary view(s), that rich countries should pay money to poor countries or climate victims, has no political legs. This position simply raises the price tag for climate mitigation, a crazy thing to do when already people are balking at paying anything at all.
This is the truth that cannot be publicly acknowledged but fortunately it does seem to be guiding the next steps of negotiations. The top 20 or so emitters have booted out the rest of the world, unwilling to allow poor countries to continue to hold up negotiations in order to extract further rents, as they did at Copenhagen. This coalition of the willing is the best hope for a climate treaty.
Glenn Bowen says:
The money will go to the corrupt.
December 21, 2009, 12:27 pmJardinero1 says:
A simpler solution would be to ban foreign aid and foreign investment in developing countries. Returning developing countries to their pre-colonial, subsistance levels would produce the quickest nearterm reductions in carbon levels. It would effectively end complaints of western imperialism and interference with indigenous, peoples, cultures and societies. Then, developed economies, who care about climate change, would have more capital to make the requisite changes for a greener society.
December 21, 2009, 12:49 pmMark Buehner says:
Here’s a thought- lets wait until someone can demonstrate some actual damages before apportioning restitution. Crazy, but it just might work.
December 21, 2009, 1:48 pmTamerlane says:
Glenn Bowen nailed the first leg of the money’s journey. after that it disappears into the secret overseas bank accounts of the kleptocrat thugs ruling most of today’s phony nation-states.
December 21, 2009, 2:00 pmNickM says:
5. The money will be divided among countries in proportion to the number of child prostitutes they have provided for the use of UN bureaucrats, and will then be deposited into secret bank accounts.
Nick
December 21, 2009, 2:42 pmHarry Eagar says:
Based on my model of bribery, a good deal of it will end up in Monaco. I say that with high confidence (90%).
December 21, 2009, 2:43 pmAnon says:
Harry Eagar:
Please release all of your code and raw data.
December 21, 2009, 3:47 pm:-)
M. Gross says:
He only releases his code to people to pay, Anon.
December 21, 2009, 5:05 pmHarry Eagar says:
Like alarmist-in-chief Stephen Schneider, I claim that my code is 1) so idiosyncratic that no one else could make it work; and 2) it contains many ‘unrecorded subroutines.’
(My first post was a jest. This one is serious. Schneider really does say that about his code, in ‘Science as a Contact Sport.’)
December 21, 2009, 5:28 pmNunzio says:
How much will the western Europeans pay the U.S. to reduce our carbon emissions under President Palin?
December 21, 2009, 5:48 pmFen says:
“And just so there is no misunderstanding, you are not allowed to pay us back in Carbon Credits”
December 21, 2009, 7:05 pmAllan Walstad says:
After two “analogies” re global warming/warning that were instantly shredded by the commenters here, Prof. Posner, you have finally offered an apt metaphor. The waste of resources you’re talking about really does make roughly as much sense as Bush’s attack on Iraq did.
December 21, 2009, 7:29 pmPeteP says:
“The fund should be used to pay off countries whose participation in a climate treaty is essential but have little interest in participating.”
I see you’re home from a long day negotiating the health care bill with recalcitrant Democrat Senators :-)
December 21, 2009, 7:43 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Do We Need “Global Governance” To Combat Global Warming? says:
[...] my view, such global governance is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent global warming. As co-blogger Eric Posner points out, an effective climate change deal requires the agreement of only about 20 or so major emitting [...]
December 21, 2009, 8:11 pmDesiderius says:
And so the Danegeld recommences…
December 21, 2009, 10:23 pmDo We Need Global Governance To Combat Global Warming? | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] my view, such global governance is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent global warming. As co-blogger Eric Posner points out, an effective climate change deal requires the agreement of only about 20 or so major emitting [...]
December 22, 2009, 12:48 amwws says:
There will be no money, because not even this Congress will appropriate it with the details so hazy. It was just another rainbows’n'unicorns promise Obama made to get through the conference – he has no intention of or interest in actually seeing it come to fruition.
Just another con job.
December 22, 2009, 11:21 amBruce Hayden says:
I agree with your results, but may disagree to some extent with the way you got there. President Obama really hasn’t driven much legislation during his Presidency so far. Rather, he seems to leave most of the work to his allies in Congress, and it is they who will likely not come through. This is just one more issue on the table for them, and after the Health Care “Reform” fiasco, are likely not willing to undertake something like this which is likely to drive their reelection chances even lower.
December 22, 2009, 4:48 pmPubliusFL says:
Since green technologies are less economically efficient than conventional technologies (e.g. it’s more difficult and expensive to power your country with solar and wind than with coal), doesn’t the fourth principle actually reward poor countries that, for the sake of the environment, choose a slower path to development than they otherwise could have?
December 23, 2009, 10:11 pm