climate

the media have it the poor nations want "cash" to develop sustainable economy.

if, big *IF* that is about cash, and not funding or refunding, that is a definite no.

experience tells us underdeveoped nations leaders can be trusted with a whole lot of things, but not with "cash"

it is not about cash, it is about scientific exchange, exchange of components, funding of the developments,.. overhere. and support in proven projects (wich could be funding research eg.)overthere.(1)

cash is out of the question. it would be a complete waste and mount up to actual bribery and corruption when the resources continue to be gladly plundered.

so not cash. evrything else, including forms of subsidizing, and financial compensation (but accountable, whence preferably afterwards or in the proces) it is all necessary, but not "cash".

refunding *guarantee's* (that can't be kidnapped with eg. "sanctions", no.) solid guarantee's, ok?

it is hard to estimate what green research can be done productively in poorer and less developed nations, so the technological exchange must be on a non-profit bases,
it will also be hard to find criteria.

for example, for a greener environment almost every soil and geology needs research as to how to best use and ecologically enrich it. this must be held in the perspective of what people actually do with the land, and what they actually develop in the nation. such research can better be done natively. if not only for language.
(2)

otoh in many such nations the attitudes may have to change first. in many nations goes that the poorer, the huger the distance between classes. research done by people with an elitist mind, in area's like these, is almost completely useless.

so to fund research we will have to apply , and get it up to, standards.
both financially, and socially, perhaps even sociographically.

btw in many nations there is not even something like garbage services. especially in remote areas.so there will need to be money (and transparency) to set it up. However the long term effect of such action is allways positive, and by recycling, fractioned collection, (and:P for the capitalist gospel, employment) the cost are not actually very high.(3)

it has been a long time proposed the ecological costs should be in the price to buy a product, since the system allways opted not to, the money will need to be made available now, afterwards, that is also natural.

it is also something we cannot tax other nations, when we ourselves never had to pay that extras. they just would continue to not develop. also not environmentally develop, wich from our unprepared platform appears more costy.

i doubt it is tho. the recycling value of materials, btw. that are used to improve emissions in less developed nations, would remain with the rich nation that offers them. they can then kind of be leased, and like with not providing "cash", it is a measure against corruption.

don't go.. but how can you say poor nations are corrupt? i know because if it is about environment, most all rich people think/thought it is okay to be corrupt, and, because rich people in poor nations time and again have proven to only care about theirselves.

we don't care more, but with a more educated and cultured population base, it is much harder for officials to repress people, and acces public funds.

(not that it doesnt happen on an appaling scale, that would would cover whole underdeveloped nations budgets.)

it is only, i propose measures that would cause something to happen.
i don't distrust one more then the other, i basically distrust all elites.
"for what they are worth".

to examplify, management, heads of resource states, cheney, a lot of elitists in the rich world, take more money then similar people in poor nations. ofcourse such people greed is equal everywhere, so by providing money you would achieve exactly nothing. they all want to be similarly rich as an oil sheik, bill gates, or the head of the next state before something goes to ecology. we call that in dutch: a bottomless pit.


(1) we have a meritocrat option there, and could provide a minimal scientific staff to foreign university's, make it an educational project, make the contacts, and control the funding.

(2) famously traditional , often even almost forgotten) strategy's are often the most promising. and can reveal surprising insights in many other areas.(food, health, climate, history, language etc.) it is probably a good idea to promote and combine such research. these make for not to bad science work btw. a lot of interviewing, fotographing, video can be used, the reward to uncover your own region's particularity's and the satisfaction that more of the knowledge base history and language get preserved. this can also be done in an educational manner,
both organisationally and socially.

(3) i am considering vast rural extends and villages that for example get payed for (some of) their recycling efforts. at least we would recover many more valuable fractions relatively easily. special efforts must be made for chemicals and central collection of the remainder of waste.