In a Nov. 3 article, The Economist warns that the “lofty” goals set out by the Paris agreement and agreed to at COP26 in Glasgow last year should be abandoned because they are not attainable. Say goodbye to the limit of a 1.5-degree C increase in the planet’s temperature. It’s a lost cause. Emissions haven’t been cut, Earth’s temperature is 1.2• C hotter than in pre-industrial times, etc.
“The delegates gathering in Egypt should be chastened by failure, not lulled by false hope. They need to be more pragmatic and face up to some hard truths,” says The Economist. Does this mean that the City of London rag has given up on Malthusian genocide? Hardly.
Rather, the “pragmatic” approach it lays out requires that developing countries “partner” with rich countries, but the developing nations will be the losers. More money will have to be spent in investing in clean energy, tripling the amount from today’s $1 trillion budget. Rich countries will have to lend more, but, The Economist points out, the amounts required “are far greater than what might plausibly be squeezed out of Western donors or multilateral organizations,” such as the World Bank.
So, target those middle-income nations, the ones that have some level of industrial development—Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Argentina, Indonesia, for example. They are going to have to work with the rich countries “to mobilize private investment,” which means they are going to have to make big improvements in their “investment climate.”
