With COP21 fast approaching, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has asked G20 countries to hurry up and allocate money to the UN’s Green Climate Fund so that the Fund can start spending $100 billion per year on the deployment of renewable energy in developing countries.
Yes, you read that right – the $100 billion Green Climate Fund is actually expected to allocate $100 billion per year, which logically means that the Fund will need over $1 trillion in the kitty.
In fact, the Indian government’s submitted proposal to COP21 notes that:
While this would evolve over time, a preliminary estimate suggests that at least USD 2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices) will be required for meeting India’s climate change actions between now and 2030.
Of course while accepting money for renewables with one hand, India will still be increasing CO2 emissions by 90 per cent over the next 15 years, with China’s CO2 emissions to rise by 150 per cent over the same period.
But you are unlikely to hear about this from the environmental movement or mainstream media. Western nations like Australia, who actually pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions, are criticised for not doing enough, while developing countries who intend to increase emissions are praised for “cutting emissions intensity.” The two measurements are completely different.
Take a look at how the The Guardian and the ABC covered China and India’s COP21 submissions (emissions intensity) versus how Australia’s target (actual emissions) was described on the ABC and in The Conversation.
Given that the Australian government announced last December that it would donate $200 million to the Fund (not enough for the Greens), will co-chair the Fund in 2016, and is still to figure out how to actually achieve and pay for its 26-28 per cent reductions, it appears that Australian taxpayers will be paying for this hypocrisy many times over.