The hardest problem of all is to appreciate the facts that the poor nations are - quite reasonably - not going to forgo their development, and that they can only afford to develop by consuming fossil fuels.
The surest way for a poor nation to stay poor is to harass, hobble, and straitjacket private enterprise or to discourage or destroy it by subsidized government competition, oppressive taxation, or outright expropriation.
The test for aid to poor nations is therefore whether it makes them capable of being productive. If it fails to do so, it is likely to make them even poorer in the – not so very – long run.
In both rich and poor nations consumption is polarized while expectation is equalized.
President Obama has pledged $3 billion to aid poor nations. All of that $3 billion is going to the United States.
Poor nations are hungry, and rich nations are proud; and pride and hunger will ever be at variance.
It would be nice if the poor were to get even half of the money that is spent in studying them.
the distinction between rich nations and poor nations is one of the great dominant political and international themes of our century.
In my current work on global warming, I argue that the only apparent solution to the deep problem of climate change would require very large transfers of wealth from rich nations to poor nations, so that the entire world can make the transition to renewable forms of energy as fast as possible.
