Peter Foster: The UN’s climate collector is here — and he wants us to pay up

The Un may be useless with regards to coping with despots and disease, and not able to control its very own peacekeeping rapists, but the one thing where it can’t fail is posturing about climate. That is because the metrics of success aren’t anything as mundane as temperatures or weather: They are the volume of verbiage and the level of conspicuous financial commitment to forcing poor nations down the renewable cul-de-sac.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was at Ottawa on Thursday to congratulate Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for his “recommitment” to the UN and his “leadership” on climate. Also, perhaps to obtain a number of details of the $2.65 billion in green help to which Trudeau so conspicuously committed Canada before December’s climate meeting in Paris.

In an interview with Ban on Thursday morning, the CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti pressed the UN Supremo on the selection of uncomfortable issues for example Syria, migration, sexual abuse and North Korea, but her first question was about the aim of Ban’s visit to Canada. He earned the extraordinary suggestion that the Paris climate agreement and also the UN’s sustainable development goals might address the “root causes” of conflict, as if ISIL’s priority might be carbon footprints.

Top-down aid is a conspicuous failure; which makes it wind-powered won’t increase its effectiveness

Still, Ban had suggested in Paris – following a murderous Islamist attacks in the city – that climate change may well be a reason for terrorism. It’s difficult to think that any teenager would go to the Middle East because she didn’t think that Canadian climate policies were sufficiently draconian. But if that’s a real threat, then Trudeau’s firm resolve for pursue solar ways – be they climatically pointless and economically damaging – will probably keep her around the picket lines against new pipeline development rather than inducing her to strap on a suicide vest.

Related

Peter Foster: Better delivery for bad Liberal policyPeter Foster: Seeking a cure for Koch Derangement SyndromeOntario’s Power Trip: How Hydro is walloping Ontario business

Admittedly, reality has intruded on the Liberals’ claim that there would be a ending up in provincial premiers within 3 months of Paris, where a federal climate policy could be announced. Environment and Global warming Minister Catherine McKenna confessed this week that what can really leave a meeting in Vancouver in early March will be a framework to pursue an agenda. Numerous “working groups” could be established to perform the “hard work” of focusing on how they are able to possibly satisfy the commitments produced by the Harper government to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, which McKenna has promised is just a “floor.”



The provinces possess a Balkanized mess of conflicting climate policies that the Liberals will endeavour to bring under one giant, leaky bureaucratic umbrella. McKenna only has said that the insurance policy will involve “pricing carbon,” that’s, a tax on industrial activity. She hasn’t said whether the national scheme will be “revenue neutral,” that is, if the funds raised is going to be accustomed to lower taxes around the jobs that workers won’t have.

The First Ministers’ climate meeting is to coincide using the Globe Conference in Vancouver, a world-scale Davos-on-the-Pacific meet up of policy wonks, rent-seekers and green flim-flam artists, where Trudeau is to result in the keynote speech.

Meanwhile, there’s the question of how that $2.65 billion is to trickle down to the indegent via the sticky fingers of worldwide bureaucrats. Just a few piddling sums were announced by the Federal delegation in Paris. There’d be $30 million for that Least-Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). Another $10 million visits support investments in “Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems,” all of which doubtless possess a hefty complement of officials in the oars. Then there is $50 million for a “G7 climate risk insurance initiative in developing countries.” The biggest commitment, of $150 million, was “to support alternative energy investments in Africa.” But what Africa needs isn’t expensive and unreliable renewable energy however the old-fashioned fossil fuel kind, whose current cheapness should be very good news for that poor. Under the related press release’s “quick facts” was a note that OECD analysis “has shown the potency of using public funds to lever private sector investment on climate projects, notably by addressing risks for that private sector.” Translation: Few private investors within their right mind could be purchasing renewables without a hefty government subsidy.

Finally, Canada pledged $35 million “to combat short-lived climate pollutants.” These funds would increase the chimney from the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which comprises 49 states, 16 intergovernmental organizations and 44 non-governmental organizations. A dubious basis, surely, for rapid action or meaningful results.

Altogether, the Paris announcements added up to only 10 per cent of Canada’s five-year commitment. One big question is what amount of the all the money will be transferred from existing aid commitments. But the bigger issue, as Nobel economist Angus Deaton and many more have stated, is the fact that top-down aid has been a conspicuous failure, so making it solar and wind-powered is hardly prone to increase its effectiveness. That inconvenient fact, however, should be pushed to 1 side by professional interventionists and redistributors, whose soul house is the UN, and whose typical representative is Ban Ki-moon.

Meanwhile it will likely be fascinating to determine how, come March, Sunny Justin’s government seeks to paper within the widening chasms separating the provinces over energy development and also the climate issue, which, saving outright war, may be the great political divider in our time.

Brought to you by the United Nations.