Skip to content

Developing Nations Want $1.3 Trillion A Year

October 30, 2022

By Paul Homewood



Most of the world’s developing countries have backed a demand for wealthy nations to channel at least $1.3 trillion in climate finance to them annually starting in 2030, the opening salvo in one of the most contentious negotiating topics at the COP26 climate summit.
African nations and a group called the Like-Minded Developing Countries, which includes China, India and Indonesia, said in a document they submitted to the United Nations at the summit that half the money should go toward funding renewable energy in the developing world and half toward protecting these countries from the effects of global warming.
Developed nations have long pledged to help pay for developing nations to respond to climate change. That promise was crucial to sealing the Paris accord in 2015, when the U.S., Europe and other wealthy countries agreed to provide $100 billion a year from 2020 through 2025.
The $1.3 trillion target for mobilizing funds reflects the huge investments that will be needed after that to reach the climate targets of the Paris accord, the paper says.
“The post 2025 mobilization goal must reflect the ambition, progression and the collective agreement to stay well below 2 (degrees) Celsius and aspire to stay within the 1.5 degree Celsius temperature goal,” the paper says.
Developed nations didn’t hit that target in 2020, falling $20 billion short, and aren’t likely to meet it until 2023, climate negotiators said in a report in October. The shortfall has angered developing nations and complicated the talks in Glasgow.
Western officials say they aren’t ready to set a target for climate finance post-2025, given how difficult it has been for them to hit the $100 billion target. They will only begin the talks at COP26 on a goal for post-2025.
“We’re not feeling particularly capable now,” said one European official. “It’s really not the right time.”

According to the latest figures from OECD, climate finance hit £83 billion in 2020:




However earlier updates suggested that well over half of this was in the form of loans. Developing nations have said they want want mainly grants. In any event, they simply don’t have the capacity to pay back hundreds of billions in loans .

Figure 3. Instrument split of public climate finance in 2016-2020 (USD billion)

OECD projections show that climate finance will continue to struggle over $100 billion in the next few years, which makes the target of $1.3 trillion pie in the sky:



We also know that, as far as the UK is concerned, all of the climate grants paid out have simply been funded out of the ODA budget. In other words, the money is merely switched from other aid projects to climate ones. It is not new money.

I suspect that applies to most other countries too.

There is simply no way that existing overseas aid budgets could support these new demands.

To put the numbers into perspective, based on GDP, the UK’s share of $1.3 trillion would be about $70 billion.

One final footnote. Last year Joe Biden promised to increase US climate aid to $11.4 billion a year, but so far Congress has refused to approve this, and spend this year is only around $1 billion.

With the mid terms almost certain to lead to a GOP majority in the House, and probably in the Senate as well, it is likely that no more money will be approved during the rest of Biden’s term.

Without big money from the US, it is unlikely even the $100 billion target will be met.

  1. dave permalink
    October 30, 2022 12:22 pm

    “We are not feeling particularly capable now.”

    ‘Not tonight, dear. I have a headache.’

    ‘You have one all the time, now!’

    ‘Climate change does that to a girl!’

    ‘Oh, another example of global warming causing frigidity!’

    Seriously, all this is just make-believe now. So long as everyone gets enough money for the junketing to continue…

  2. GeoffB permalink
    October 30, 2022 12:30 pm

    I really look forward to COP27 being a total disaster for the eco loons, particularly John Kerry, Greta Thunberg and Greenpeace. May common sense and reality triumph over hysterical, the world is going to end dogma. I live in hope.

  3. John Palmer permalink
    October 30, 2022 12:32 pm

    Well, you can’t deny their ambition can you?
    Snowflakes and hell spring to mind….

  4. John Brown permalink
    October 30, 2022 12:35 pm

    Apart from the fact that I do not believe CO2 drives the earth’s temperature and that we actually need to increase it to promote plant growth and prevent famines, attempting to transition the world from affordable, reliable fossil fuels to low energy density, expensive, intermittent renewables rather than mitigating natural occurring climate change, reminds me of Sir Lew Grade’s famous remark about the cost of making his movie “Raising The Titanic” :

    “It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic”.

  5. Penda100 permalink
    October 30, 2022 12:39 pm

    I wonder how much of the $1.3 trillion (if it was ever paid) would end up in numbered Swiss bank accounts?

    • October 31, 2022 9:09 am

      Alternatively, insert ‘not’ after ‘would’.

  6. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 30, 2022 12:45 pm

    China? India? Developing Nations? Only because the UN has defined them as such – which is not likely to change.
    Any country that can fund a space programme and atomic power/weapons, not to mention a huge standing army, is not, in my book, ‘developing’, other than developing the ability to scam the West.
    The problem now is that, with China starting to implode, the ‘corrections’ required to be made by the Dictator Xi (what else would you call him) may take the route of more belligerency to the West. If Climate Change doesn’t get us (as-if!) the Chinese will.
    Having just reviewed what I wrote there, I figure the Chinese have now discovered how weak the Russians really are: they may just think, forget the West, let’s remove Russia from the equation first (how? I don’t know).

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      October 30, 2022 12:58 pm

      Harry, you may have a point there. Russia (population about 145 million) really would not be that much of a big player without nuclear weapons. In fact were it not for their nuclear arsenal they could be relatively easily subjugated by the likes of China in conventional warfare.

      • October 30, 2022 6:44 pm

        Let pretend nuclear weapons don’t exist for a moment. I can’t see what benefit invading Russia would have for China when it would be much more useful for China to trade with Russia or have it as a puppet state as it can produce enough food and fossil fuel to replace imports from the West & Middle East which I suspect is a big reason it has not invaded Taiwan yet.

        Then looking at 1 of the reasons North Korea still exist is China does not want US military bases at border so Russia remaining a military power that no-one wants to invade is in China interest which is why I have never got why in the 1990s why Russia request to join NATO was rejected as this issue was predictable. Also don’t forget about India’s relationship with Russia – A China, India & Russia alliance would be interesting.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        October 30, 2022 8:18 pm

        “I can’t see what benefit invading Russia would have for China”

        Siberia is vast and very, very rich in minerals, oil, gas etc. and China has been eyeing it enviously for decades.

      • T Walker permalink
        October 30, 2022 11:21 pm

        Thank you Cat. I was about to make the same point. China now knows it is there for the taking.

      • October 31, 2022 1:27 pm

        @catweazle666 + @T Walker | yes, but China can get access to Siberian resources without invading Russia with PR damage & hostility a war would cause especially now if it helps Russia get around Western sanctions and maybe works to turn it into a puppet state which also mean it has another country who will agree with it on the UN security council.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        October 31, 2022 4:10 pm


        Hitler could have had access to the Sudetenland too, but that didn’t stop him invading it, leading inevitably to WWII.

        He wasn’t bothered about bad PR and hostility either, I think you’ll find.

    • Matt Dalby permalink
      October 31, 2022 11:08 pm

      The UN didn’t declare that China and India were developing nations. It allows nations to decide for themselves which category they wish to be in, and everyone else simply has to agree with whatever a nation decides it is.

  7. johnbillscott permalink
    October 30, 2022 12:55 pm

    Climate, and the forces causing change are great and are beyond the ability of mankind to control. It is akin to the situation facing King Canute in the 12 century where he (representing reality and good science) demonstrates to his flattering courtiers (representing the eco-loons) that he has no control over the elements,

    • I don't believe it! permalink
      October 30, 2022 11:16 pm

      Not to be too much of a pedant but Canute ruled in the 11th Century.

  8. Gamecock permalink
    October 30, 2022 1:22 pm

    There are no ‘developing countries.’ It’s a lie.

    There are many countries with arrested development. Giving them $1.3 trillion, or one damn dollar, only enables them to continue to delay development.

    Calling them ‘developing nations’ is condescending Western colonialism. That they are still ‘developing’ is CAUSED by the West.

    “Hi! I’m from the West, and I’m here to help you.”

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 30, 2022 1:40 pm

      Hi! I’m from the East and I’m here to scam you. Hmm.

  9. Cheshire Red permalink
    October 30, 2022 4:23 pm

    If that money is paid order books at Mercedes, Rolls Royce and a couple of private jet suppliers would probably be filled nicely.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 31, 2022 11:24 am

      A lot of happy arms dealers as well.

  10. catweazle666 permalink
    October 30, 2022 5:46 pm

    I hope they aren’t holding their breath!
    On the other hand, however…

  11. October 30, 2022 7:48 pm

    Well they can’t have it. Next please.

  12. October 30, 2022 8:50 pm

    Aid is the transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries

    • October 31, 2022 12:32 am

      Well said

      • October 31, 2022 10:59 am

        Unfortunately I cannot claim the credit. A gentleman called Douglas R Casey I believe is the originator.

  13. October 30, 2022 9:54 pm

    That will buy a lot of mansions and limos.

  14. Liardet Guy permalink
    October 31, 2022 11:03 pm

    The mantra is “tax the poor in rich countries to give it to the rich in poor countries”. If the objective is to reduce the atmospheric level of carbon DIOXIDE then take a look at Moana Loa since COP1. Steady old 2ppm a year plus. Surely Boris must have noticed COP26 was a failure like all the others? And to tarnish our new sovereign and our new Prime Minister by associating them with failure is madness.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: