This is absolutely correct and indicates how broad theories of change developed to be a clean, easily explainable solutions lead to distorted consequences when implemented in complex systems.
Obviously absurd. But doesn’t your logic extend to large aggregations of low emitters (i.e. larger low income countries with low per capita emissions - much of Africa)? The issues are the same for a village in DR Congo. The unconditional priority in poor countries should be economic growth (the best form of adaptation) and that should not be throttled by demands for decarbonisation from a low base of emissions and weak economy (much harder than decarbonisation from a high base).
Fully agree! On a more positive note, decarbonisation or climate action plans are sometimes used by national or even sub national (with limited revenue raising powers) to raise funding earmarked for sustainability projects -> and indirectly supporting growth!
True. If STP is using decarb to get additional funds for energy or agriculture, then more power to them. But it’s wrong that they need to couch it as mitigation to get funded. I worry the donors are undercutting the WBG’s poverty mission.
This is absolutely correct and indicates how broad theories of change developed to be a clean, easily explainable solutions lead to distorted consequences when implemented in complex systems.
Excellent piece. Thank you.
Obviously absurd. But doesn’t your logic extend to large aggregations of low emitters (i.e. larger low income countries with low per capita emissions - much of Africa)? The issues are the same for a village in DR Congo. The unconditional priority in poor countries should be economic growth (the best form of adaptation) and that should not be throttled by demands for decarbonisation from a low base of emissions and weak economy (much harder than decarbonisation from a high base).
Yes.
I don’t know exactly where to draw a line, but it’s definitely well above STP.
This made me so angry.
Fully agree! On a more positive note, decarbonisation or climate action plans are sometimes used by national or even sub national (with limited revenue raising powers) to raise funding earmarked for sustainability projects -> and indirectly supporting growth!
True. If STP is using decarb to get additional funds for energy or agriculture, then more power to them. But it’s wrong that they need to couch it as mitigation to get funded. I worry the donors are undercutting the WBG’s poverty mission.
Great point!