African countries shouldn’t have to borrow money to fix climate damage they never caused – economist

5 comments

1. Well you aren’t going to sell other countries on paying more taxes to pay for it so they don’t have a choice.

2. Seems reasonable. The companies responsible should pay for it, but they’re not going to.

3. I expect slowing climate change is going to take a back seat for the foreseeable future. We are going to just have to adapt.

4. The whole argument somehow assumes that African countries can ‘fix’ the climate somehow, which is a complete irrational fallacy. Next, why would they need to borrow to invest in their economies? They can choose to live within their means and just borrow for investments that are likely to yield an economic return quickly (climate agenda activities do not contribte to economic returns). The whole premise of the Economist article is flawed as is often the case with articles from that journal….

5. One of the main points of national borders is allowing the wealthy to move resources to one side while leaving people on the other. This wont really change until the people have as much right to cross borders and the wealth. Loans vs grants is interesting and relevant, but not as relevant as allowing people to move to places less burdened by climate change, to places with a lower cost of living, and to places with more economic mobility so they can make bigger contributions to tech that mitigates climate change.

Comments are closed.