International consensus allude the G20

Getting 20 nations to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats. But when the agreement involves money – well, what’s harder than herding cats – birds?

At its most recent meeting, the G20 could not reach unanimity on a strategy to combat climate change. There were disagreements in two key areas: tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030, and funding assistance for developing nations.

First – the goal of tripling renewables by 2030 probably isn’t realistic. And even if nation agreed to it, how would they execute it?

Ultimately markets dictate how much renewable energy is installed, not governments. True, government policies like the IRA can accelerate things, but there is a limit to what governments can do. Factors such as grid congestion, labor shortages, inflation, interest rates etc. all play keys roles.

As for funding for developing countries, that’s politically problematic. Selling any electorate on the need to pay for other countries to reduce the use of fossil fuels may be the right thing to do, but it isn’t going to win many votes.

In my opinion, developed nations have an obligation to assist less developed nations to avoid the continued use of coal and other fossil fuels. Countries like the United States executed its industrial revolution by leveraging coal and other fossil fuels. That has afforded us the luxury of having the financial wherewithal to move to clean energy.

Developing nations are where the U.S. was 50 - 100 years ago. It would be hypocritical for us to say those nations can’t do the same thing that we did. And the U.S. isn’t alone on how it leveraged fossil fuels in its economic evolution. Thus, if we truly want to curtail the use of fossil fuels in developing nations, we have an obligation to provide financial assistance.

But as I said, doing so won’t get a politician reelected and that means it’s unlikely to happen to the degree that supporters would like to see.