In climate circles, ‘green’ is also the word for cash. By Graham Lloyd.
There is a number that defines the size of the challenge at the Glasgow climate change talks, COP26, and it’s not 1.5C, 2030, or carbon neutral by 2050.
The figure is $US1.3 trillion, with demands that it be paid by rich countries to the developing world every year from 2030 on.
The details of the transfer are not supposed to be formally determined until 2024 but a group of 24 “like-minded” developing nations – which include China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam – put it firmly on the table at Glasgow.
They say half of the money should be spent on cutting carbon dioxide emissions in developing nations, and half on adaptation efforts. At least $US100 billion a year should be given as grants.
Before getting to the $US1.3 trillion, developed nations must deliver on an existing pledge to provide climate finance of $US100bn a year, which was supposed to happen from 2020.
In our experience in the climate “debate”, most all of the warmist behavior can be explained by money. It’s all about the money. This will continue even after global cooling, which started in late 2016 as predicted, becomes obvious.