China & India need $50 trillion for Net-Zero transition, report says
By Paul Homewood
Get your wallets out!
Eight emerging markets — India, China, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, UAE, Nigeria and South Africa — will together need $94.8 trillion in transition finance from developed markets if they are to meet climate goals
India will need investments worth $12.4 trillion, nearly half of U.S. GDP, from developed nations and investors to help its economy transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2060, according to a report.
Without capital inflows and grants from the developed world, emerging economies including India’s will see household consumption fall by 5% on average each year, according to a study by Standard Chartered Plc.
Eight emerging markets — India, China, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, UAE, Nigeria and South Africa — will together need $94.8 trillion in transition finance from developed markets if they are to meet climate goals without affecting their citizens’ cost of living, the report said. China alone will need $35.1 trillion, the calculations show.
Developing economies have raised concerns about richer nations not meeting their climate finance commitment of $100 billion, made in Paris in 2015. India sought $1 trillion in funding from the developed world to help meet its net-zero goal by 2070, during the global climate talks in November.
If India’s financial needs are provided by developed markets, household spending in its economy could increase by $7.9 trillion. Instead, if India were to self-finance its transition costs, the average Indian household spending could fall by as much as $5.8 trillion, according to the report.
The study suggests a mix of blended finance or joint spending by the public and private sectors to subsidize the cost of capital to cut investments risks, coupled with issuing sovereign green bonds by emerging markets as possible solutions to bridge the funding gap for climate change.
“If developed markets fail to channel net-zero investment into emerging markets while working on their own transition, there will be devastating implications for the planet,” the report said.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The UN has always been clear, reallocation of wealth globally has always been the aim. Its precious little to do with temperatures/climate. Of course its reallocation upwards within developed nations as well, bringing middle/lower income households down to same level as in so-called undeveloped nations. Thus creating global feudal system, controlled through CB digi currencies, on-line IDs, health passports etc etc.
Every politician is merely carrying out orders , our ‘demos’ has been destroyed.
JimW : You are right. Its all part of the UN Agenda 30.
Agreed, JimW. Climate Change is just a trick to get the people with the wealth to accept it.
The UN’s intentions were enunciated at the 1992 Rio Conference quote
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? How better to accomplish the collapse then to create mass hysteria proselytized by the willing dupes in our education system that CO2 is going to destroy the world because allegedly it will cause the temperature to go up 3*C”
The big unanswered question is why did Western politicians naively sign up for the economic destruction of their economies and concomitant destruction of their citizens lives. This impending disaster was never referred to their taxpayers and never an official remit declared. Most politicians do not look further ahead than the next election and in this case let the eco-loons and the Media like Beeb take alll the actions spreading false propaganda,
‘Developing economies have raised concerns about richer nations not meeting their climate finance commitment of $100 billion, made in Paris in 2015.‘
No such commitment was made in Paris in 2015 – or elsewhere at any time.
Indeed Robin, developed countries were ‘strongly urged’ to annually commit 100 billion to the climate gravy train by 2020 in Paris, I seem to recall, but nothing was mandated nor has it been since.
Not even that. The Paris Agreement doesn’t mention $100 billion.
And, what happens to any money provided by a gravy train? Large amounts in the pockets of politicos and others. And, I have a recollection that some islands, possibly Vanuatu, were handed large amounts of money so they could resettle in countries less risky to being flooded. The money (well, what wasn’t siphoned off) was used to improve the airport and build lots of new holiday hotels.
If another such proposition arises, a strong answer would be to “do a China” and insist that all project management would be done by experts from the donor countries, with technology and infrastructure provided from donor countries. locals could provide the muscle power. Ah well, I can but dream….
One proposal for that money is that China should have it: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/09/28/green-climate-fund-considers-first-china-project-among-1-1bn-proposals/.
Sounds like a variant on the Angela Merkel school of international strategy.
Why impoverish yourself for the sake of your competitors especially if you have surrendered your trading position to them since the 1950’s?
No such thing as a fair transition and the outcome will be akin to knowing how many grains of sand are on your local beach. Remote and meaningless.
Not one of Bloomberg’s finest works.
‘Eight emerging markets — India, China, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, UAE, Nigeria and South Africa’
Gamecock counts 7.
Equating India and China with the Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa is stupid.
And South Africa and South Africa aren’t emerging, they are in a death spiral.
Net zero is a very stupid idea.
Nut Nut Zero took a bunch of mad lefties to think of it, but it’s taking a mad bunch of Cons to actually try to put it into practice.
JF
At least a trillion should be used to fight parasites! /s
China an emerging market? What planet are these people on?
China is an emerging market as they self identify as one.
If they weren’t allowed to do so they would never have signed up to any climate related deal.
There’s absolutely no evidence to support the UN’s hysterical ‘devastating implications for the planet’ rhetoric.
They should be flat-out ignored.
2060 and 2070 are mentioned as goals. I thought we had 18 months, 7 years, 12 years or 14 years to get to net zero, depending which alarmist you listen to.
I don’t know what is the total amount of money in the World is but this does seem to be a good chunk of it.
Larry Fink’s Black Rock has assets of $9 trillion (roughly £4 billion) why don’t we ask him to lead the way? 🙂
Black Rock does seem to be very keen on green projects. Fink might go for it.
No, Blackrock MANAGES that much. They are not Blackrock’s assets.
“The big unanswered question is why did Western politicians naively sign up for the economic destruction of their economies and concomitant destruction of their citizens lives.”
The political class have no understanding of the industrial infrastructure required to run a modern country, along with the expected standard of living.
While many have some knowledge of what computerised information systems can do, with competent operators, few outside the profession understand the skills required to ensure success, or the interdependence in the Manufacturing Industry, in particular the Chemical Industry.
Intelligence is one requisite for being an Engineer, but without knowledge and experience, it become a road to continual failure. Announcing deadlines, new functionality or budgets before any competent analysis isn’t good practice. While having independent advisors can help, there needs to be enough in-house expertise to allow cross-examination of these experts: independent of what, and expert at what? Too many experts appear to have a personal interest, like wanting their company to get the sale, subsidy, or influence, instead of the nation’s interest.
Who have we had ‘looking after the nation’s energy policies?
Chris Skidmore, the Energy Minister who signed our commitment to net zero carbon dioxide emissions into law and has recently set up and is Chair of the Net Zero Support Group of Conservative MPs, gained a 1st in Modern History, Univ of Oxford:
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2022/04/chris-skidmore-the-governments-energy-strategy-mustnt-look-backwards-to-more-fossil-fuels.html
Here is his earlier effort:
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2021/08/chris-skidmore-net-zero-will-mean-nothing-unless-we-can-convince-the-highest-emitting-countries-to-change-also.html
Looking at the appropriate minister, starting before the 2008 Climate Change Act, we have:
Malcolm Wicks: Sociology, LSE
Mike O’Brien: History and Politics, then PGCE, North Staffordshire Polytechnic, then a Solicitor
Joan Ruddock: Botany and Chemistry, Imperial College London
Charles Hendry: Business Studies, Univ of Edinburgh
John Hayes: BA Politics, PGCE History & English, Univ of Nottingham
Michael Fallon: Classics and Ancient History, Univ of St Andrews
Matt Hancock: PPE, Univ of Oxford, MPhil in Economics, Univ of Cambridge
Andrea Leadsom: Political Science, Univ of Warwick
Lucy Neville-Rolfe: PPE, Univ of Oxford
Nick Hurd: n/a, Univ of Oxford
Claire Perry: Geography, Univ of Oxford, MBA from Harvard
Kwasi Kwarteng: Double 1st in Classics and History, PhD in Economic History, both from Univ of Cambridge
Anne-Marie Trevelyan n/a
Greg Hands: 1st in Modern History, Univ of Cambridge
Only Joan has any Science related degree, and even then, I’m not sure she understood the importance of how windmills don’t work supplying a National Grid.
And I cannot see any Engineers: just the sort of people who learn how to successfully implement large technical programmes, on time and within budget.
There is also the peculiar Civil Service ethos that you must know nothing about what you are working on, plus frequent rotation to unrelated areas, I experienced that when dealing with MoD people on military procurement, ex RAF staff on naval systems, never ex Navy.
A couple of years ago I advised the Department for Trade on their new strategy to boost exports for large infrastructure projects globally. The senior civil servant in charge didn’t know the difference between a bond and a bank loan. The strategy was entirely stupid but that came from the Minister, who had a vague understanding of what China and Japan did so thought we should copy them. He had no idea about what the UK did, where we excelled, what we didn’t do and why. It was a disaster.
You are correct insofar as government personnel, both the elected so-called professional politicians of all parties (bar the very few in either House that have both scientific and technical knowledge, plus bags of common sense) and the civil service leadership have very little understanding of what has made our power supplies in the western world tick to the extent of bringing national prosperity. But also the so-called professional scientific and engineering institutions, bar one, that have fallen hook, line and sinker into this quasi-religious belief of the impending doom of the end of the world. None, to my knowledge as a member of two, has ever challenged the governments since it started with mere guesses in the United Nations. Many individuals have tried, and have been cast out accordingly. The MSM are equally to blame given heavily biased preaching and without any questioning. The BBC is the worst of those zealots with its evident commitment to propaganda the like of which has not been seen since World War 2, emanating from Germany and it’s Nazis.
“The big unanswered question is why did Western politicians naively sign up for the economic destruction of their economies and concomitant destruction of their citizens lives.”
“”The political class have no understanding of the industrial infrastructure required to run a modern country, along with the expected standard of living.””
Y’all give them too much credit.
The Peterson Dictum: “If you can’t figure out what someone is doing, or why, look at the outcome. And infer the motivation. If it produces mayhem, perhaps it was aiming at mayhem.”
The political class embraces the destruction of Western Civilization. They didn’t naively sign up for it; they wrote it.
They will give up on climate change when it no longer sways people to their view. BUT, it will be immediately replaced with new horrible things they must address by giving up your rights. Watch for the NEXT BIG DEAL.
Get your wallets out!
China & India need $50 trillion
We’re all gonna need bigger wallets 😮
It is MEANINGLESS to talk of $50 trillion DOLLARS being transferred to China and India. Money is a veil, and – in the modern world – a mutual pretence.* Only goods and services can be transferred. What goods and services exist, or could be brought into existence, in the West that could be consumed by a Chinese peasant, or even a Chinese ruler, to make up the $50 trillion? None!
Banks are in the business of obscuring economic realities and thereby skimming a little bit from everybody as a cut or rent. Hence the self-serving rubbish that is a ‘report’ by any bank or other part of the financial octopus. The quoted bank HOPES that China and India will demand ‘some money’ and Western Governments will employ the banks to ‘make it happen’ in a confused mechanism. I recall how much the banks profited** from so-called ‘dollar recycling’ when OPEC put the squeeze on us fifty years ago.
*Even professional economists are lost in the delusional madness. They talk of banks and governments ‘printing money’ which is nonsense. It is WE we create money when we ACCEPT their electronic dots and dashes as a means of exchange and as a means of determining winners and losers in the race of life At some point the whole house of cards will come crashing down but nobody can predict when or how.
**This, in the real sense of goods and services consumed, because the workers in the financial industry do have a very nice life-style which is based on the efforts of people in other, more useful, occupations.
It’s amazing how much twaddle banks now speak. If Green investments are good investments then there’s capital available. If they are not, then they shouldn’t be made or we will all be poorer.
The basic problem is that Green investments only make sense if you include the avoidance of future costs associated with climate change. But for any individual investor those costs are tiny, because they are far in the future.
Climate change economics does note work jn a mafket economy, which is why we are now having our market economy destroyed.
Amazing fact that we still give China overseas development aid, £ 71m in 2020.
Does no one look at who we are financing and why?
“…why?”
Probably because of the self-loathing, racial-guilt complexes, inculcated in the West – always to be expiated by sackcloths and ashes; and danegeld to people who totally despise our weakness.
Well with Europe and the USA rapidly going bankrupt because of sanctions , good luck with that !