JAWS ! ep. 5 : ”rich” countries to help ”poor” ones go ”greener” ... !

Questions about COP29’s promised wealth transfer plan

By Mark Hendrickson for The Epoch Times

December 11, 2024 15:20 Updated: December 12, 2024 01:29

The UN climate change conference COP29, held last month in Baku, Azerbaijan, reached an agreement that rich countries (Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, but not China – the world’s second largest economy – or the wealthy Gulf states) will transfer at least $300 billion a year to developing countries by 2035. This is to finance the development of green energy sources in these countries and enable them to cope with climate change. The agreement also proclaims the goal of increasing the annual wealth transfer to $1.3 trillion per year by 2035.

This wealth transfer plan confirms once again that the primary goal of climate activism is a socialist redistribution of money.

Let’s take a closer look at the specifics of this plan.

A Reuters report says that “rich governments” will be handing over money. But what do we mean by “rich governments”? This definition is very obscure and misleading. Is there really such a thing as a “rich government”? Governments have no money other than the money they collect from the people and businesses under their jurisdiction. Would the United States government be considered a “rich government”? With a debt of $36 trillion, it doesn’t seem very rich to me.

Reading the reports, one learns that COP29 delegates expect private sources to provide a significant portion of the money pledged. But what gives these delegates, or the governments that appointed them, the authority to promise large amounts of spending from private sources? The term “private” means “outside government control.” I suspect that the COP29 version of “private” refers to green energy companies that receive large government subsidies and are therefore not really private, but dependent and subject to the will of the governments that fund them.

By the way, who exactly are these delegates who have promised to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars a year from more developed to less developed countries? Are they the elected representatives of the taxpayers of those countries? No. Rather, they are executive branch appointees and bureaucrats. This whole unseemly affair is completely undemocratic.

Reports also indicate that representatives of many relatively poor countries are complaining that the aid promised to them is inadequate and unfair. No wonder. That’s the game: making relatively rich countries feel guilty for allowing themselves to prosper.

For example, World Resources Institute CEO Ani Dasgupta said the $300 billion-a-year transfer deal is “a significant payment toward a more secure and equitable future,” before adding that the countries receiving the wealth transfer are “rightfully disappointed that richer countries have not put more money on the table when the lives of billions of people are at stake.” Really? Billions of lives could be lost if rich countries don’t dig in? What an exaggeration!

There is a worrying situation lurking beneath the surface of the COP29 deal. The UN COP organizers explicitly state that part of the wealth transfers will be used to develop wind and solar energy in developing countries. This is a hypocritical maneuver. I agree with the many political and intellectual leaders in developing countries who have denounced the “greens” in rich countries for trying to prevent poor countries from exploiting the same fossil fuels that have fueled the economic development and prosperity of rich countries.

As with many foreign aid programs, politicians in poor countries will accept foreign aid with strings attached. These countries do not have the technical expertise to build wind and solar power plants themselves, so much of this “aid” would be redirected to companies located in the donor countries. Why would leaders in donor countries accept such projects? Because they will control some of these funds and use them to strengthen their own political power and influence, as well as, probably, to increase the amounts in their personal bank accounts.

This is how the foreign aid game has so often been played: it promotes bad governanceand thus delays the economic development that the people of a poor country so desperately need.

The political leaders of poor countries are obviously keen on foreign aid, but there are also others who have a vested interest in profiting from these gigantic transfers of wealth. The COP29 agreement, understandably, does not provide detailed explanations of the channels that the proposed money transfers will take.

Would the treasuries of developed countries send money directly to the governments of the designated recipient countries? But who decides how much to send to country A, B, C, etc.? Or will the money go to the UN where unelected socialist bureaucrats will oversee the distribution of the funds? In this case, will some of the money end up in the bank accounts of the UN or some of its officials? Will anyone control how the money is redistributed? What could go wrong?

The whole COP29 money transfer plan recalls the comment of the first German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck: “Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being prepared.” Donald Trump can be understood if he does not send his delegation to COP30 next year…