Posted by: r.m. | December 10, 2008

‘paying our climate debt’

So we’ve heard the inconvenient truth: climate change is a really big problem, and we need to get serious about it. But what we haven’t heard much about is the cost and who will ensure that bill is paid. How much will it cost us to slow down and stop climate change? What exactly is our financial obligation to the poorer countries that have little or nothing to do with causing the problem? And what institution will make sure the money gets where it’s intended to go?”



  1. The World Bank seems to be facing opposition regarding its managing the funds. And also, I believe that this environmental problem should be dealt with through environmental and political instistutions with the contribution of a economic institution for advising but not managing the whole process.. Economic ends are what got us into this mess anyway!

  2. sadly the bill will be paid mostly by those who never had a say in getting us into this mess in the first place. Bangladesh, which by the way is really poor, is drowning. the first climate refugees are going to be the world’s poorest, as if they didn’t have enough to deal with already. as for the real cost of solving the issue at hand, i think they might want to decide on what to do before they start talking money. i mean governments have practically started writing checks, half of which’s value will undoubtedly go down the bureaucracy drain, and there is not yet a draft, let alone a proper plan of action.

  3. As the author said at the beginning, we always talk that we should stand in front of climate change, and we should do so and we should do that… but what about the cost??? There is no institutions to finance mitigation and adaptation, the only institution that is ready to manage them is being opposed by several countries… So our problems are getting enlarged more and more, climate change is getting worse, countries are unable to work together against it and they are unable to manage its cost…so what to do?

  4. The cost we’re looking at is the wrong one, we should look at the price to pay if we do nothing and not what will cost us to solve the problem.
    The first is tenfolds larger than the second. Let’s be serious people!
    What’s cheeper? To make punctual repairs to your house or wait till it collapses than buy another one?? The only difference between our planet and a house is that no other planets are for sale… we’ve only got one.

  5. Economics is based on the environment, so if we’re losing our environment as a result of the economical disagreements, we will soon lose our economies too. Afterall, I think everything is related to our nature and land, in some way. Therefore, we should first seek a solution on how to save our surrounding, and then worry about other things!

  6. What needs to be done is to root out the corruption in the World Bank and put new people with good intent in their place. The other thing to be done is to think of an efficient plan that could cover our climate change ‘dept’ without slowing down our GDP. But come to think of it…what good is a fast GDP if there is no world to spend it in? And what can a man benefit if he wins the world and loses himself?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: