Rich countries shouldn't force unreliable wind and solar power on poor nations where alleviating poverty is the priority

By Bjorn Lomborg

Too many rich-world politicians and climate campaigners seem to forget that much of the world remains mired in poverty and hunger. Yet rich countries are increasingly replacing their development aid with climate spending. The World Bank, whose primary goal is to help people out of poverty, has now announced it will divert no less than 45 per cent of its funding toward climate change, shifting some US$40 billion annually away from poverty and hunger.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Don't have an account? Create Account

It’s easy to treat climate as the world’s priority when your life is comfortable. The 16 per cent of the global population that lives in rich countries doesn’t typically go hungry or watch loved ones die of easily treatable conditions like malaria or tuberculosis. Most are well-educated and their average incomes are in the league of what was once reserved for royalty.

Much of the rest of the world still struggles, however. Across poorer countries, five million children die each year before their fifth birthday and almost a billion people don’t get enough to eat. More than two billion have to cook and keep warm with polluting fuels such as dung and wood, thus shortening their lives. Although most young kids now attend school, low educational quality means most children in low- and lower-middle-income countries will remain functionally illiterate.

Poor countries desperately need more access to the cheap and plentiful energy that previously allowed rich nations to develop. The lack of access to energy hampers industrialization, growth and opportunity. Case in point: In Africa, electricity is so scarce that the total available per person is much less than what a single refrigerator in the rich world uses.

Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Raiding development funding for climate spending is an abysmal decision. Climate change is real but the data do not support using scarce development resources to tackle it ahead of poverty-related ills.

Climate activists argue that poverty and climate change are inextricably linked and we should attack both. But we actually don’t. And research repeatedly shows that spending on core development priorities helps much more and much faster per dollar spent than devoting funds to climate. That is because real development investments — whether in fighting malaria, boosting the health of women and girls, promoting e-learning or increasing agricultural productivity — can dramatically change lives for the better right now and make poorer countries better off in so many ways, including by making them more resilient against natural disasters and any additional, climate-related disasters. By contrast, even drastic carbon emission reductions would not deliver noticeably different outcomes for a generation or more. Although spending on adaptation to build resilience in poor countries is slightly more effective than cutting emissions, both are far inferior to investing in the best development policies.

Climate change is not the end of the world. Indeed, UN climate panel scenarios show that the world will dramatically improve over the century and that — despite a campaign of panic — climate change will merely slow that progress slightly. Last year the world saw its largest cereal production ever. With incomes and yields continuing to climb, hunger will fall dramatically over the coming decades. Climate change is forecast to merely make that hunger decline a smidgen slower. Likewise, the panel expects global average income to increase 3.5-fold by 2100, absent climate change. Yale economist William Nordhaus, the only climate economist to win the Nobel Prize, shows that even if we do little about climate change, that would merely slow progress slightly: by 2100, incomes would still have risen 3.34 times.

We should tackle climate change in a smart way, with rich-country governments making sorely needed, long-term investments in green energy R&D to bring low-cost solutions that deliver reliable energy at prices everyone can afford. Much of the poorer world primarily wants to pull people out of poverty and improve their quality of life with cheap and reliable energy. Yet rich countries now refuse to fund anything remotely fossil fuel-related.

This smacks of the worst hypocrisy. Rich countries themselves get almost four-fifths of their energy from fossil fuels, largely because of the unreliability and storage problems of solar and wind energy. Yet they arrogantly castigate poor countries for aspiring to achieve more energy access and suggest the poor should somehow “skip ahead” to intermittent solar and wind, and accept unreliability that the rich world does not.

For most poor countries, climate change ranks far down people’s priority list. A large survey of leaders in low- and middle-income countries reveals education, employment, peace and health are at the top of their development priorities, with climate coming only 12th out of 16 issues.

The poorer half of the world deserves the opportunity to better their lives. But when politicians ask us for more money to help the world’s poorest, we should demand it goes to efficient development projects that actually save and transform lives, not to feel-good, inefficient climate programs.

Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His new book is “Best Things First.”

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

QOSHE - Opinion: Don’t raid poor countries' development budgets to fund climate policy - Bjorn Lomborg
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Opinion: Don’t raid poor countries' development budgets to fund climate policy

69 0
26.01.2024

Rich countries shouldn't force unreliable wind and solar power on poor nations where alleviating poverty is the priority

By Bjorn Lomborg

Too many rich-world politicians and climate campaigners seem to forget that much of the world remains mired in poverty and hunger. Yet rich countries are increasingly replacing their development aid with climate spending. The World Bank, whose primary goal is to help people out of poverty, has now announced it will divert no less than 45 per cent of its funding toward climate change, shifting some US$40 billion annually away from poverty and hunger.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Don't have an account? Create Account

It’s easy to treat climate as the world’s priority when your life is comfortable. The 16 per cent of the global population that lives in rich countries doesn’t typically go hungry or watch loved ones die of easily treatable conditions like malaria or tuberculosis. Most are well-educated and their average incomes are in the league of what was once reserved for royalty.

Much of the rest of the world still struggles, however. Across poorer countries, five million children die each year before their fifth birthday and almost a billion people don’t get enough to eat. More than two billion have to cook and keep warm with polluting fuels such as dung and wood, thus shortening their lives. Although most young kids now attend school, low educational quality means........

© Financial Post


Get it on Google Play