Fresh air in Copenhagen

This week, international negotiators meet in Copenhagen to forge a long-planned international agreement on climate change. The owner of the item at the conference was the announcement of a carbon target containment of India, the last of the high profile of the emitting greenhouse gases a step forward. While the commitments on the table before the conference - the latest of the United States, China and the subcontinent - is almost certainly inadequate, have made possible a Copenhagen agreement, at least, put the world in the way correct.

Now, however, the negotiations focus on how to transfer hundreds of billions in cash and technology from rich countries to developing ones. Developing nations insist they need the help to adapt to the worst effects of climate change, to slow down deforestation and carbon intensive development paths. Although the quantities that the demand for developing countries are too high, the International Energy Agency estimates that the non-OECD members, in fact, require 197 billion U.S. dollars of additional investment per year for carbon reduction by 2020. Not everyone should come from donors, but, Yvo de Boer, head of climate change on the United Nations, has said that reducing emissions and adapting the developed world must contribute $ 10 billion annually over the next few years and about $ 100 million a year in the long term.

The White House said before the conference that developing countries are likely to agree to the figure of $ 10 billion in Denmark. But in the long run, the best outcome for most of the money flowing from rich countries to come from private investment, which must respond to the incentives of national governments to create businesses to invest in carbon reduction efforts .

Any agreement in Copenhagen should ensure that the results of these policies are recognized as a help. This approach, says Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense Fund, will also require developing nations with serious mitigation plans have access to an international carbon market in the sound that their efforts are measured in the same units - tonnes carbon - and internationally verified, so that private capital is focused on effective programs.
ad_icon

Because of international politics, if nothing else, another piece of aid must come from public funds from rich countries. The British newspaper The Guardian has reported that some European Union countries may be able to divert existing aid flows rather than allocating new funds. In fact, this solution is reasonable, whether the aid would have gone to the promotion of carbon-intensive development is reprogrammed to be greener, but not if only robs the poor to pay for climate change efforts.

It is also essential to ensure that international institutions for new ways for foreign aid do not become corrupt which sets policy for the benefit of those in power in recipient nations, rather than to the Earth's climate. A significant role for the World Bank or similar institution that favor the rich countries is a good idea. That's the U.S. position that donor nations pledge to spend a certain amount, but does not guarantee that an international body will get it. Waxman's House-approved bill Markey climate gives management flexibility on where to send aid, and that gives the United States needs to exert pressure on its use. If there is a danger that the money will be wasted, the U.S. simply can distribute through other facilities or even bilaterally.

If developing countries according to measures of accountability sensitive and rich countries put real money on the table, this issue does not prevent the Parties in Copenhagen to reach a solid political agreement.