The decision reached by the government’s task force on development issues was published on Tuesday and it aroused concern among the Finnish development organisations. Based on Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen’s answer the organisations had reason to believe that the climate funding promised by Finland to the developing countries was to be taken out of the official development aid funds. The organisations consider this to be a reference to the classic story about the Simpletons, who made a blanket longer by cutting it at the other end.
I’m very much afraid that the organisations’ comparison to the Simpletons is far too positive. What the Simpletons did is actually quite harmless, as they didn’t lose perhaps more than just a seam allowance from the blanket’s length. I myself really think that with the aforementioned government’s actions there is more to be lost than just margins. If this is the case, the climate money issued for the developing countries will be taken from traditional development aid, such as education and health care – the loss is quite obvious. There is not much that remains open to interpretation.
One reason is the acquired experience. Although the inefficiency of development cooperation has created numerous legends, many bad examples are from as far back as the Cold War. In those times, dictators were paid off by offering money with the intention of getting them to support one’s own side. The arrival of the money at the right address was of no particular concern. The lesson was learnt by previous mistakes and the truth is that it strikes home the better, the more it is performed at the grassroots level and through local forces. All in all, it may be stated that development cooperation has been performed remarkably well and especially the investments in girls’ education and children’s health care have been a success story.
However, we may expect a lot of mistakes concerning the climate fund – we do have so many examples of stupid mistakes, as the climate-scared world makes decisions in panic and dashes around without any profound underlying research. What else was it than precipitated foolishness to ban, head over heels, incandescent electric lamps, when these glow bulbs are now replaced by energy saving bulbs that are of poor quality and generate hazardous waste – instead of waiting for LED lights? What else was it than just foolishness to rush into bio-fuels without first thinking of putting any other kind of qualitative criterion before the word than just bio, and then afterwards, start to fight against even developable versions? As we don’t have any proper tradition for quality climate measures, one can bet that much of the climate money directed towards the developing countries will first be thrown out of the window.
That is the reason why this money should not be taken away from where it is already in use for good purposes.
Climate change is a difficult problem – especially as our reactions towards it cause a couple of other additional difficult problems. Only the future will show which one has caused more harm, climate change itself or our panic decisions to combat it. It may be that the worst climate catastrophes are just those, which have been caused by a bad climate policy.
It really seems that climate change cannibalises all of the other problems in our imagination. The thought of emission reductions has stuck in our minds so that all other problems seem to melt away. This is the worst mistake ever. We must take care that we don’t, even in the name of climate change, endanger vaccinations or the education of hundreds of millions of children. The best climate aid may help people out of poverty, as poverty drives people to make decisions that are harmful to the environment.