Instead of trying to tell the poor what they need why don't you give them the money (via Give Directly) and let them get what they think they need? Is your philanthropy really going to pass the cash test (i.e. better than giving direct cash payments)?
I mostly agree. I’m a massive fan of GiveDirectly — and I even wrote a book, Oil to Cash, arguing for citizen dividends in new oil economies. But I don’t think cash transfers are likely to spur energy investments on the scale that countries need to industrialize. And if billionaires want to support climate progress in poor countries (and I believe they should), then cash won’t be enough. Countries will still need power plants, a modern flexible grid, and other components of an energy transition.
Instead of just investments in power plants it might be more worthwhile to support the development of EPZs and charter cities. Even the early stage industrialisation requires a whole host of other things to come together.
Yep maybe. Those zones will obviously need lots of low cost reliable power. I don’t think climate philanthropists will want to directly subsidize EPZs but they might help build systems to serve them. If you can make a case for climate adaptation (or even mitigation), you might be able to get cheaper capitals and other sub market support. That would be great.
If you have economic development, countries would have the money to adapt better to natural disasters. Even in bangladesh, the number of people dying from natural disasters has come down drastically. Although they would lose more damage from climate change simply because they have more valuable stuff.
Stellar piece, Todd. Thank you.
Instead of trying to tell the poor what they need why don't you give them the money (via Give Directly) and let them get what they think they need? Is your philanthropy really going to pass the cash test (i.e. better than giving direct cash payments)?
I mostly agree. I’m a massive fan of GiveDirectly — and I even wrote a book, Oil to Cash, arguing for citizen dividends in new oil economies. But I don’t think cash transfers are likely to spur energy investments on the scale that countries need to industrialize. And if billionaires want to support climate progress in poor countries (and I believe they should), then cash won’t be enough. Countries will still need power plants, a modern flexible grid, and other components of an energy transition.
Instead of just investments in power plants it might be more worthwhile to support the development of EPZs and charter cities. Even the early stage industrialisation requires a whole host of other things to come together.
Yep maybe. Those zones will obviously need lots of low cost reliable power. I don’t think climate philanthropists will want to directly subsidize EPZs but they might help build systems to serve them. If you can make a case for climate adaptation (or even mitigation), you might be able to get cheaper capitals and other sub market support. That would be great.
If you have economic development, countries would have the money to adapt better to natural disasters. Even in bangladesh, the number of people dying from natural disasters has come down drastically. Although they would lose more damage from climate change simply because they have more valuable stuff.
How about a bit of money to pay Substacker (All? How do you choose?) to open up their 'Stacks to comments.