The Un may be useless when it comes to dealing with despots and disease, and not able to control its own peacekeeping rapists, but the one thing where it can’t fail is posturing about climate. That’s because the metrics of success are nothing as mundane as temperatures or weather: Those are the amount of verbiage and also the degree of conspicuous financial commitment to forcing poor nations on the renewable cul-de-sac.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was in Ottawa on Thursday to congratulate Pm Justin Trudeau for his “recommitment” to the UN and his “leadership” on climate. Also, perhaps to obtain a number of details of the $2.65 billion in green help to which Trudeau so conspicuously committed Canada before December’s climate meeting in Paris.
In an interview with Ban on Thursday morning, the CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti pressed the UN Supremo on the range of uncomfortable issues for example Syria, migration, sexual abuse and North Korea, but her first question was about the goal of Ban’s trip to Canada. He made the extraordinary suggestion that the Paris climate agreement and also the UN’s sustainable development goals might address the “root causes” of conflict, as though ISIL’s main concern might be carbon footprints.
Top-down aid is a conspicuous failure; making it wind-powered won’t increase its effectiveness
Still, Ban had suggested in Paris – following the murderous Islamist attacks in the city – that climate change may well be a reason for terrorism. It is difficult to believe that any young person would go to the center East because she didn’t believe that Canadian climate policies were sufficiently draconian. But when that is a real threat, then Trudeau’s firm resolve for pursue solar ways – all be they climatically pointless and economically damaging – will likely keep her on the picket lines against new pipeline development rather than inducing her to strap on the suicide vest.
Related
- Peter Foster: Better delivery for bad Liberal policyPeter Foster: Seeking a cure for Koch Derangement SyndromeOntario’s Power Trip: How Hydro is walloping Ontario business
-
-
-
Admittedly, reality has intruded on the Liberals’ declare that there’d be a meeting with provincial premiers within 3 months of Paris, at which a federal climate policy could be announced. Environment and Global warming Minister Catherine McKenna confessed this week that what can really leave a meeting in Vancouver at the begining of March will be a framework to pursue a plan. Numerous “working groups” could be established to do the “hard work” of understanding how they are able to possibly satisfy the commitments made by the Harper government to lessen Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, which McKenna has promised is just a “floor.”
The provinces possess a Balkanized mess of conflicting climate policies the Liberals will endeavour to bring under one giant, leaky bureaucratic umbrella. McKenna only has asserted the insurance policy will involve “pricing carbon,” that’s, a tax on industrial activity. She hasn’t said if the national scheme will be “revenue neutral,” that’s, if the funds raised will be used to lower taxes around the jobs that workers won’t have.
The First Ministers’ climate meeting is to coincide using the Globe Conference in Vancouver, a world-scale Davos-on-the-Pacific meet up of policy wonks, rent-seekers and green flim-flam artists, where Trudeau is to result in the keynote speech.
Meanwhile, there’s the question of how that $2.65 billion is to trickle down to poor people through the sticky fingers of worldwide bureaucrats. Only a few piddling sums were announced through the Federal delegation in Paris. There would be $30 million for that Least-Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). Another $10 million would go to support investments in “Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems,” which doubtless possess a hefty complement of officials at the oars. Then there is $50 million for a “G7 climate risk insurance initiative in developing countries.” The biggest commitment, of $150 million, was “to support renewable energy investments in Africa.” But what Africa needs isn’t expensive and unreliable alternative energy however the old-fashioned fossil fuel kind, whose current cheapness ought to be great news for the poor. Under the related press release’s “quick facts” was a observe that OECD analysis “has shown the potency of using public funds to lever private sector investment on climate projects, notably by addressing risks for that private sector.” Translation: Few eco-friendly within their right mind would be investing in renewables without a hefty government subsidy.
Finally, Canada pledged $35 million “to combat short-lived climate pollutants.” This money would go up the chimney from the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which comprises 49 states, 16 intergovernmental organizations and 44 non-governmental organizations. A dubious basis, surely, for rapid action or meaningful results.
Altogether, the Paris announcements added as much as only 10 per cent of Canada’s five-year commitment. One big question is how much of the remainder of the cash will be transferred from existing aid commitments. However the bigger issue, as Nobel economist Angus Deaton and many others have stated, is the fact that top-down aid has been a conspicuous failure, so making it solar and wind-powered is hardly likely to increase its usefulness. That inconvenient fact, however, should be pushed to 1 side by professional interventionists and redistributors, whose soul house is the UN, and whose typical representative is Ban Ki-moon.
Meanwhile it will be fascinating to see how, come March, Sunny Justin’s government seeks to paper over the widening chasms separating the provinces over energy development and the climate issue, which, saving outright war, is the great political divider of our time.
Brought for you through the Un.
