michael perelman wrote:
... neither I nor Hillary have made any commitment as to whether we would put
up a nickel or serious money.
Hillary's a huckster, you're right:
*Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
*... And today I’d like to announce that, in the context of a strong
accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation
actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the
United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal
of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the
climate change needs of developing countries. We expect this funding
will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private,
bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.
This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation,
particularly, again I repeat, for the poorest and most vulnerable
among us.
If the carbon markets are generally estimated to grow to $3 trillion by
2020, then to reach the $100 billion that she promises will be raised
"from a wide variety of sources, public and private", only 3.33% of that
market is needed in the form of Clean Development Mechanism funding
(which goes mainly to venal corporations in the Third World, from
'private' sources in the North which want to avoid or delay
decarbonisation). In 2008, with carbon trading at $120 billion and CDMs
valued at about $6.5 billion, we were already way above that ratio.
So... business as usual, or worse.
It does mean that the climate financing debate should now explicitly
tackle carbon trading. Here's a nine-minute video -
http://www.storyofcapandtrade - and my reply to some pro-trading
critics: http://www.counterpunch.org/bond12172009.html
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
