There's an old Punjabi joke, in which a family grieving for the loss of their mother complain to the doctor: “was there really nothing you could do?” they ask. The doctor replies, “well I tried to save her, but in the end, I thought the best way to get rid of the disease was to kill her”.
Badaboom.
It doesn't translate so well (nor does the Punjabi suspicion of doctors) but the scenario is broadly comparable to the farcical state of the UN Green Climate Fund.
The fund, designed to help developing countries to fight climate change, can be spent on coal-fired power plants.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) met in Songdo, South Korea last week, and refused to rule out the use of fossil fuels; members of the organisation claimed that an outright ban would be neither pragmatic nor feasible, but allowing fossil fuels would promote a conceptual shift towards using cleaner energy.
Oh, doctor, was there really nothing you could do?
The fund has struggled for donations. Developed countries have contributed only 1% of the $10.2 billion committed to climate finance at the UN conference in Lima last December. Furthermore, the lack of rules makes the fund look nothing more than a showpiece to decorate the UN's supposed commitment to tackling climate change.
It's problems such as these which make people doubt the integrity and commitment of institutional solutions to problems such as climate change; yet, we are bound to those institutions in everything from our international relations to the prices of our coffee.
What's more, it's problems such as these which show up the internationally-backed farce for what it is; a way of putting a good name on predetermined actions.
Complaining to the doctor might not work, but embarrassing him in front of peers might; which is why it's important to participate in petitions and protests which make people take notice of the lack of action surrounding climate change; go to 350.org to find out more about divestment.