Essay by Eric Worrall
“… about 70% of that needs to come from the private sector…”
Q&A: How COP26’s UN High-Level Champion for Climate Change sees the world’s climate progress so far
Nov 4, 2022
Lucy Almond
Head of Strategic Communications, Tropical Forest AllianceNigel Topping, the UN’s High-level Champion for Climate Change for COP26, shares his views on where climate action is succeeding with the World Economic Forum.
According to Topping, about $2 trillion a year more is needed in emerging and developing economies, excluding China, to confront climate change effectively.
…
What’s the big picture on the amount of money needed for the nature-positive agenda – and who’s going to have to come up with it?
Nigel Topping: This is about investing for higher productivity and job growth, so I reject the framing of ‘who’s going to have to come up with it’. My question is: Who’s going to make money if they problem-solve to find ways of structuring nature-positive investments that provide returns?
In terms of how much? It’s complicated. But about $2 trillion a year more is needed in emerging and developing economies, excluding China. About 70% of that needs to come from the private sector. Look at Africa, where a large majority of people are working in agriculture. There’s a huge need for investment in smallholder farmers, but also in small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs). For example, a really exciting start-up in Nigeria is making solar-powered cool boxes that massively reduce food waste while moving vegetables around in a hot, humid country. As well as investing in companies that provide services to the market, we need to provide loans to SMEs that are the backbone of the food system in emerging markets. There’ll be a lot of focus on that at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh.
So yes, this is about investment from multinational partners, but also crucially from participants in the value chain and local companies. Remember, this is a growth story, so there’s a reason for investing in changing practices.”
…
Read more: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/cop27-united-nations-climate-change-progress-nigel-topping/
At least they said “excluding China” when discussing who is supposed to receive the “investment”.
The reality of course is the reason countries are poor is usually that their kleptocrat leaders keep stealing all the cash. Cash handouts rarely help the recipients, unless you mean the personal bank accounts of the corrupt elites who usually run those poor countries which keep demanding handouts.
If you have any doubts about this, I recommend you read Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati’s “For God’s sake, please stop the aid”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If I remember correctly, we were told at Glasgow that there was $135 trillion of private funding world wide waiting to be “mobilised” to combat climate change.
Could all those billionaires and their compliant corporations please step forward.
“… about 70% of that needs to come from the private sector…”
ALL of it comes from private sector, bscause governments don’t have any money that they don’t take first from their citizens.
Actually, Governments can and do print money.
Jim, That process of printing money does not create anything. It simply dilutes the value of what is being called money. Printing ‘wealth’ which is done in times of crisis, (think Zimbabwe) does nothing but destroy actual wealth. The impact of printing is felt in the longer term it is a prime driver of inflation and always causes actual devaluation of the currency.
Do any of these people actually understand what a trillion actually is? That is, how big an amount, one trillion dollars is.
If a private billionaire member of the WEF wants to identify specific investments in “smallholder farmers” or specific SMEs, and invest his own money, go right ahead, be our guest. What? No?
So where does this swamp rat expect these $trillions of “private sector” investment to originate? Woke government pension funds? What makes these investments “climate” related? In general, “green” technologies tend to be the riskiest and have by far the worst record of financial performance. Solar-powered refrigerators? If they were a good commercial idea, they’d already be on the market and popular in local markets. What, no buyers? What a shame!
We become a prisoner of these fantasies. We need to break the chains.
There is no such thing as giving money to developing nations. When you think you are doing that what you are actually doing is giving money to the corrupt leaders of developing countries. They deserve nothing.
Britain only paid off the WW2 American Lend Lease Agreement about 3 years ago, I believe and that was buttons in comparison.
During those 70 odd years I doubt anyone, including myself, knew they were paying it. Such is the transparency of Government.
How long will our children and their children have to unknowingly pay for the absurd sums now being bandied about?
Come on you economists do your sums. Let’s say at 3% interest for starters then double it to 6%. I reckon we would need another bunch of children to complete the deal.
Do we really want to burden our descendants like that on what will inevitably turn out to be a FALSE WHIM.?
“For example, a really exciting start-up in Nigeria is making solar-powered cool boxes that massively reduce food waste while moving vegetables around in a hot, humid country.”
Why the condescension? Why not proper refrigerated transport and storage? (as tgasloli comments elsewhere here.) Powered by hydrocarbon fuels and a reliable electric grid.
Why should the developing countries accept such an elitist put-down? Toy solar cool boxes. Sheesh.
From a few years ago, we have “the soccket ball”
https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/soccket-soccer-ball-generates-electricity-article-1.1292580
Has anyone ever seen one?
“Solar powered cool boxes” great idea that no one would criticise BUT where is their solution for national grid scale reliable and cheap electricity without fossil fuels. This seems to be a pattern with the anti-fossil fuel brigade to spruce these laudable micro-solutions but don’t address the “elephant in the room”.
2 trillion, problem solve, money making, nature positive
What a jackwad
How about the US pulling out of the UN.
Um, ultimately it all comes from “the private sector”.
UN is too busy demanding MORE .. MORE – but don’t ask them how they flittered past funding. The dream of every con
Let’s just print money for climate crap – what could possibly go wrong?
My late father in law was a UN official in the 50’s/60’s (when that actually meant something) and witnessed where the aid money went, straight into the pockets of the corrupt.
Cuba was different. The Russians weren’t stupid enough to hand over money, but if Fidel wanted heavy equipment for anything it would be there within weeks, by the shipload.
BS… $2 Trillion can’t come close to replacing $50 Trillion in existing Energy System Assets…. + scrapping 100’s of millions of vehicles with decades of operation remaining + $15,000 to $20,000 to convert nearly half a billion houses from natural gas heating to electric heat pumps + reinventing the Trucking and Aviation Industries + financing a major World War to force Asia and Africa to submit to the fraud.
The Climate Fraud just cannot tell little lies…all their HUGE lies are understated by 2 to 5 orders of magnitude.
Nearly half a century into this fraud… and there is NO rationally engineered plan to make a transition out of Fossil Fuels. NOT EVEN A CLOSE APPROXIMATION.
A Cascade of a fraud within a fraud within another layer of fraud.
Shortly after the NIEO died out in the mid 1980s, they (UN, socialists, etc) came out with “Our Common Future” which brought sustainability into everything. The report was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a VP in socialistinternational dot org.
In a way, “Our Common Future” is the replacement (or successor) to the fizzled out NIEO.
Hence the calls for international climate finance, mitigation, adaptation, reparations, cap-and-trade, etc.