Climate change explained: do green policies harm developing economies? | FT

Thank you. Are green energy policies
jeopardising the economies of developing countries? This is a hot potato. The answer at the moment
is very clearly no, because developing
countries in truth have implemented almost
no green energy policies, partly because, at least
until the Paris accord, they didn’t really have
any obligations to do so. It was deliberately structured
up to then as a system in which the developed countries
had obligations – not that they did much – and
the developing countries didn’t. Up until now, a lot of
developing countries have been saying that
it’s all very well for the developed countries
to essentially say we need to stop all the
oil and gas industries in order to combat
climate change. But that’s completely unfair
because the developed countries have already taken all the
benefit from energy extraction and putting all that
carbon into the atmosphere, and they’ve developed. What about the
developing countries that have yet to
catch up, and frankly don’t have the money to spend
on alternative forms of energy? It was widely thought
that green energy sources, like wind power and
solar farms, were expensive luxuries that really
only rich, developed countries could afford. That started to change quite
dramatically since about 2015 when, for the first time the
amount of global investment in so-called new renewables,
that’s wind and solar power, not older ones like
hydro power dams, actually was larger in
developing countries than it was in
developed countries. Here, a very
significant player is China, which has
invested massively in solar energy production
and battery production. One reason is they think this is
going to be the new Industrial Revolution. It’s the next stage
in human development, as it were, in
the energy system, which is the core of
any modern economy. And they feel, the
Chinese very much so, that if they’re at the frontier
of the new technologies, ahead of everybody
else, they move faster, they’re going to dominate them. Over the last decade, China
has committed something like $780bn towards
wind and solar energy. So that’s quite extraordinary. But there are other
developing countries that are really catching up fast. In fact, last year, 29 countries
joined the billion-dollar club. That’s countries that invested
a billion dollars or more into wind or solar power,
and it’s become much cheaper than it used to be. So going for a wind
farm or a solar farm is not just quicker
and faster to build. It’s not just cleaner,
but it’s actually cheaper.

29 thoughts on “Climate change explained: do green policies harm developing economies? | FT

  1. "Developing countries" are using "climate change" to suck trillions out of the 1st World… It's a scam, just another religion with fake prophesies of doom and fake priests offering miracle cures.

  2. Green policies and economy should go hand in hand.

    Some of the outcome of bad green policies will be affecting the economy otherwise in unknown ways!

  3. FT has been infiltrated by marxists and feminists…. they want people to believe the climate emergency hoax… climate is always changing… not due to human being…

  4. hello you guys know about a country with a name chile?? what about france, yellow vest?? germany utility bill goes up almost 30%

  5. The planet is screwed thanks to do-nothing politics. Your children and grandchild will pay the price for warming the planet.

  6. Developing countries like nuclear armed China and India. The "white messiah" complex is palpable, the modern left's version of the white man's burden.

  7. Has ANYONE read the Paris Climate Cord!! ?????? You should read it to figure out what China is doing about their pollution!!, their fossil-fuels!!

  8. Oh dear it seems you didn't explain anything. Show your scientific evidence, come on don't be shy. While you're at it at least admit the climate alarmist side functions like a religious cult. Admit your side has ulterior financial and political interest.

  9. Do you guys forget that based on UN's data, the biggest CO2 emitters is USA with europe not far behind and you guys still want us to cut our CO2 emission? Why don't you walk your talk?


    that today's "journalists"


    They can no longer be thought of as impartial.

    Listen to intellectuals, not "journalists"

    eg – Roger Scruton

  11. To those of you interested in saving & protecting our culture

    I recommend "New Culture Forum" which you can find on You Tube.
    Various guests, give their opinions on the turmoil of our society today.

    Reassuring & interesting

  12. Green policies restrict use of conventional energy sources and limit all nations to green ones.

    Who will suffer? Those who relay on conventional energy of course.

    Who will benefit? Those who have green tachnology to export.

    Given developing countries are mostly dependent on conventional energy and don't have as much money on research as developed countries… the answer to your question is quite an obvious one.

  13. Hard to put my finger on what it is annoys me about this.
    One. First title slide you bring up climate change, when you don't discuss the climate period. A better title would be, who are the major investors in sustainable energy, because that you sort of touch on.
    Two. 1 billion is a lot of money. 2 billion is a hell of a lot of money. 780 billion and 1 billion are very different, imagine saying £780 is equivalent to 29 £1's or insert other investment value here. It'd be of some interest to know how that effects quality of life, cleaner rivers, fumeless streets, have on people.
    There's no talk of the actual tech, or companies, no talk of the climate or runaway emissions. And no talk of fossil fuels being finite. Like, what is the plan. Just keep going forever?
    No consideration of future generations that won't have those options due to this time periods lack of foresight… I suppose I'm annoyed because this is a very bland fiscal summary without many numbers, and no detail on what is a life-threatening subject. And the life threatening part is ignored for a quick summary of well, nothing

  14. I think California has proved that renewable energy schemes are not yet ready for prime time. The technology is making progress, but governments across the world are increasingly more corrupt. When a man can go to the store and buy equipment that actually saves him money then green energy will start proliferating. People today know very well that when governments pass laws to impose restrictions or penalties on people to force them to do something, the technology is about someone's profits rather than protecting the environment.

  15. China isn't a developing country… and yes, opting for expensive unreliable energy forms compared to cheap reliable forms will hurt every country's economy. We need to stop wasting time with wind and solar and start pouring money into nuclear.

  16. We must stop the climate catastrophism Mafia!!!!! Human-caused temperature increase is a FRAUD!!!!! CO2 IS GOOD, VERY GOOD. POLLUTION IS BAD.

    We must go full nuclear!. The safest, I repeat, the safest, cheaper, cleanest, and the least landscape intrusive energy. And non intermittent, by the way. Should not were for the taxes imposed by stupid or corrupt governments on the taxpayers for the subsidies for solar and wind, they wouldn't exist. It's a big scam for the hard-earned-money workers. STOP THE WIND AND SOLAR CRAZINESS:

    It's the SUN, stupid!!!:

    CO2 is very GOOD (look at the increase in crops worldwide in recent years: ). Pollution is BAD.

    Has global warming already arrived?

    The Earth is getting greener because of CO2:

    If the carbon dioxide is so bad for the climate, how is it explained that during the years 1934 to 1937 such great natural disasters (heat waves, floodings,…..) occurred in the USA with half the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of which we have nowadays?.

  17. There's NO climate emergency according to the following studies!

    Pope Francis, the man of sin in the Vatican, which receives its power from satan in Revelation 13:2, has been pushing his false gospel on climate change or global warming since he became pope in March 2013. Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, major corporations, banks, Hollywood, governments and the biggest indoctrination institutions in the world including public schools, colleges and universities are regurgitating what the pope is saying because the world wonders after the beast, the Vatican (Revelation 13:3).

    The pope is using climate change to unite the world together so he can become the world's leader with the purpose of enforcing his mark, hence, the mark of the beast…the beast or kingdom being the Vatican.

    Climate change will be used by the Vatican to enforce its mark, hence, the mark of the beast: &

    Earthquakes, floods and erupting volcanoes are not caused by the human race. These are God's judgments warning the masses that His holy Son, Jesus Christ, is coming back soon.

  18. They don't answer the question. Great investment does not mean harming the economy. There is no corellation between those things.

    What's the point of this video?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *