United Nations envoys from around the world have been conferring in Qatar over the past couple of weeks in an effort to, among other goals, re-up the Kyoto Protocol and come up with a framework for a global climate agreement for 2020. Besides guilt-tripping the world’s wealthiest nations into financing their rewewable-energy fancies, one of the specific ideas the UN’s Green Climate Fund is pushing is to use the billions it annually donates to developing nations as leverage to get those countries to put a price on carbon.
The Green Climate Fund, designed to channel as much as $100 billion a year in pledges to emerging nations, may try to wean recipients off fossil fuel and encourage them to put a price on carbon, according to an overseer.
The fund may guarantee bank loans in developing nations for projects ranging from wind farms to building insulation and less-polluting agricultural equipment, Naoko Ishii, chief executive officer of the Global Environment Facility in Washington, said yesterday in an interview in Doha. …
Climate projects may be able to get private-sector finance augmented by guarantees from the fund, alongside discounted loans from government or development banks, Ishii said. The 24- member board of the Green Climate Fund, which is still waiting to recieve money from developed nations, may make loans or guarantees conditional on the recipient having the right environmental policies in place, she said. …
A key question for UN envoys is whether to withhold climate funds for nations that don’t have a carbon price in place, Ishii said.
That’s right: In developing countries, where poverty is much more systemic and widespread, these munificent globalists want to dictate how these economies develop in order to make traditional energy more expensive. Unable to rope more powerful, developed countries into their economically-backwards schemes, these elitists look on these poor, politically downtrodden countries as guinea pigs onto which they can foist their green agendas, and they will actively discourage the traditional, proven routes to prosperity (one of which is affordable hydrocarbon-based energy) to do it.
If their proposals, like wind energy, cannot compete profitably without generous government subsidies and decades of special federal treatment in the United States (the richest, most technologically advanced country in the world with the best access to capital), how the heck is it supposed to help lift people out of poverty and misery, improve standards of living, or help developing nations with their economic growth?