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.
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.
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).
Agree with your comment about small and minute nations trying to fix the climate for the rest of the planet. That is obviously stupid, laughable, and actually criminal towards their citizens.
I have another example: the Netherlands. That country is also trying to be the best of the class with all sorts of silly green projects.
But I do not agree with your statement that carbon emissions are a serious problem. They are not. Decarbonisation is throwing away lots of money, whereas that money could be spent in adaptation programs.
The CO2 we release into the atmosphere is good for all of mankind. It makes the Earth greener, provides for more and better food, so: stop decarbonising!
I understand your view and its underlying logic but it ignores the inescapable global responsibility for this climate crisis. Growth is important - of course it is - but solving the climate crisis will take more than “growing our way out of it,” it takes mitigation/adaptation action by all global citizens.
The size argument you employ is often used to escape responsibility and to blame others. That’s not your pitch but your argument will be used by bad actors.
The point is not the decarbonization. The point is that these 40+ professionals are being well paid to push an agenda, and to make more work for themselves.
Just spitballing here.. but what if their decarbonisation plan is also a growth plan? You're painting this as a net cost to the island's economy, but there is no obligation upon them to do it, so maybe they are there because they see an economic opportunity? Or at the very least some cheap finance that will create a few (sorely needed) jobs?
Sao Tome should have a tax on net emission of CO2 just like everybody else and use the revenue for development. Probably it woud have no effect except revenue, but who knows, maybe with the tax, their generation of electricity woud be les expensively done with a modular reactor that the Bank should finance if that were the case.
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.
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!
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.
Absolutely. Other countries should have the same tax on net emissions of CO2 that Sao Tome should have.
Agree with your comment about small and minute nations trying to fix the climate for the rest of the planet. That is obviously stupid, laughable, and actually criminal towards their citizens.
I have another example: the Netherlands. That country is also trying to be the best of the class with all sorts of silly green projects.
But I do not agree with your statement that carbon emissions are a serious problem. They are not. Decarbonisation is throwing away lots of money, whereas that money could be spent in adaptation programs.
The CO2 we release into the atmosphere is good for all of mankind. It makes the Earth greener, provides for more and better food, so: stop decarbonising!
I understand your view and its underlying logic but it ignores the inescapable global responsibility for this climate crisis. Growth is important - of course it is - but solving the climate crisis will take more than “growing our way out of it,” it takes mitigation/adaptation action by all global citizens.
The size argument you employ is often used to escape responsibility and to blame others. That’s not your pitch but your argument will be used by bad actors.
The point is not the decarbonization. The point is that these 40+ professionals are being well paid to push an agenda, and to make more work for themselves.
The neoliberal’s lack of rationality is revolting.
Just spitballing here.. but what if their decarbonisation plan is also a growth plan? You're painting this as a net cost to the island's economy, but there is no obligation upon them to do it, so maybe they are there because they see an economic opportunity? Or at the very least some cheap finance that will create a few (sorely needed) jobs?
Sure, maybe. But why is development a side benefit of a CO2 mitigation plan? It’s backwards.
I just want to see Barry Manilow on an island somewhere
Lol... Thank you for calling out the performative virtue signaling climate "progress" in such a hilarious fashion.
Sao Tome should have a tax on net emission of CO2 just like everybody else and use the revenue for development. Probably it woud have no effect except revenue, but who knows, maybe with the tax, their generation of electricity woud be les expensively done with a modular reactor that the Bank should finance if that were the case.
Todd - a great piece -- thank you.
Bureaucracy at work.