COP27: How The UN Is Keeping The Poor Poor

Even as we give thanks today for the wonderful benefits of a freedom-based political and economic system, the UN’s big annual “climate” conference, this year going by the moniker COP-27, has only recently wound up.

As with almost everything the UN does, there was nothing in this conference for anyone to be thankful for.

This year, with the activists’ beloved wind and solar energy sources manifestly failing to solve Europe’s energy crisis, there was little prospect for any major new agreements to limit CO2 emissions. [emphasis, links added]

And thus there was far less media coverage than in past such conferences.

But we should not let the event pass without noting the extent to which this conference, like most of what the UN does, evidences the alliance between elite rich-country activists and corrupt developing-country interests, all to keep the poor poor.

Now, you might ask, why would anyone want to keep the poor poor? The world continues to have at least a billion or more people who live in grinding poverty, without basic things like safe water, sanitation, home heat, or electricity.

A plurality of those people lives on the continent of Africa, with a population of about 1.4 billion, some 500 million of whom live in “extreme poverty” according to the definition and data of the UN itself. Surely, every moral person would want to find a way for those poor people to exit poverty and move up to at least what we consider a middle-class lifestyle.

But of course, that is not the case. In wealthy countries, the elites find themselves hypnotized by the pagan climate cult, with the fundamental belief that the use of hydrocarbon fuels is the ultimate mortal sin.

These people might mouth platitudes about wanting to help the poor exit poverty, but at the same time, they have no practical idea where their own prosperity comes from, or that it completely depends on abundant energy from fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, they are only too willing to use their influence to prevent the poor from using fossil fuels, in the absence of any functional alternative, thus leaving the poor to languish in poverty.

And how about the people that govern the developing countries? You might think that they would badly want to help their people to exit from poverty, but most often that is not in fact the case.

Consider developing countries’ policies as to the use of fossil fuels. Their posture on the issue is not completely uniform, and some countries that have abundant fossil fuel reserves, particularly if controlled by the government, are ready to push to develop those resources.

However, many other countries go willingly along with the Western pressure for no development of fossil fuels.

It’s simple. If you allow the exploration and development of these resources, you risk the rise of wealthy local rivals for your power. Much better to accept handouts from the rich countries, which you can package as “climate reparations,” and then use palace guards and secret police to cement yourself in power.

Or maybe just put the money straight into your Swiss bank account. Meanwhile, you can mouth some empty words about “saving the planet,” and probably get yourself fawning attention from the liberal Western press, if not a Nobel Peace Prize.

And the UN? Its institutional interest is to be the intermediary in the massive wealth transfer from the rich to poor countries.

The more wealth is transferred, the more need for UN staff and bureaucracy to administer the process. And God forbid that the poor countries should get rich and not need the wealth transfers anymore. What then would be left for the UN to do?

Once you understand these perspectives, the proceedings at COP-27 and the events leading up to it all come to make sense.

Paul Driessen of CFACT, writing at Shale Directories on November 22, rightly calls COP-27 the “Anti-African” conference:

[T]he greatest hypocrisy of all was on full-throated display at the COP-27 climate circus in Egypt November 6-18 – where attendees kept asking whether Africa should be allowed to exploit its oil, natural gas and coal reserves to improve living standards, feed families and save lives! … Even worse, it’s not just energy these arrogant eco-totalitarians want to obstruct in Africa and other developing regions. It’s also modern fertilizers — indeed, all aspects of modern agriculture – everything that can actually help farmers feed hungry people and make enough money to build a home or barn, send their children to school, and buy tractors and other equipment.

In a piece on November 7 — as COP-27 was getting underway — Reuters summarized the position of Western environmentalists toward the idea of Africa developing its fossil fuel resources:

Climate campaigners have pitched themselves against African governments that believe they should be allowed to use gas – which emits less climate-heating carbon dioxide than coal and oil when burned – to develop their economies and provide power to 600 million Africans who still lack access to electricity.

Activists raised the alarm last month when Tarek El Molla, Egypt’s minister of petroleum and mineral resources, told a ministerial meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) that fossil gas is “the perfect solution” to “achieving the energy trilemma for security, sustainability and affordability”. … But advocates for renewables are calling for no more investment in gas. . . .

Al Gore of course weighed in with a call for the entire world to “turn away” fossil fuels. And in the run-up to the conference in September, U.S. “climate envoy” John Kerry “warn[ed] Africa not to rely on natural gas to bring power to millions.”

Also in the run-up to the conference, the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) put out a big Report titled Emissions Gap Report 2022, calling on all countries, even the poorest, to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

Over at DW on October 27, they quote John Christensen of the Danish think tank Concito on the UN’s findings:

[T]he UNEP report authors explored deeper solutions via . . . “system-wide transformation.” This includes the decarbonization of the electricity supply, industry, transport, buildings and food systems. … “It’s about all countries in all sectors, but needs to reflect national contributions and circumstances,” said Christensen.

Meanwhile, Gore and Kerry have each jetted back to one of their many mansions.

Read more at Manhattan Contrarian