RT @aidanhollis: I ordered a gift from @AmazonUK to Canada, and paid for express delivery. They sent via standard delivery and I can't cont….

I ordered a gift from @AmazonUK to Canada, and paid for express delivery. They sent via standard delivery and I can't contact them to get refunded. The customer service bot is moronic. And the number given says that they refuse to accept calls from Canada. AmazonUK hates Canada.

RT @aidanhollis: Such a peculiar irony that . everyone wants to grow old, . but . no one wants to be old.

Trump wants Canada for the 51st state?

RT @jkenney: So to recap:. ▪️the USA’s closest ally gets a 25% tariff on national security grounds, . ▪️ China, the USA’s biggest strategi….

RT @GK_Fellows: In case you missed it.

I don’t agree. Canada would never have built the defenses now required since they were never required before….

RT @aidanhollis: It’s become clear that we need to have some “cards” to play — and nukes are the ultimate wild cards. I know. Non-prolifera….

The point of such weapons is deterrence. So that’s what they would be for. We have the technical capability and materials. So let’s protect ourselves. Ukraine gave up its nukes and the result has been massive death and destruction.

It’s become clear that we need to have some “cards” to play — and nukes are the ultimate wild cards. I know. Non-proliferation. But just consider: suppose a “foreign power” were to invade Canada from, for example, the south. What protection do we have?.

It’s obviously time for Canada to invest in developing its own nuclear weapons in case a hostile country like “Russia” decides to invade. We have the capability. And flight time to relevant cities would make deterrence highly effective. Let’s keep Canada independent.

If you are still reading, you should probably check out @IRPP.

And the @WorldBank found good success with a similar mechanism: but then despite excellent evaluations couldn't get more financing.

The most efficient mechanism for allocation is through reverse auctions, where the projects needing the smallest subsidy are the ones to get it. A recent brief from @KfW_int comes to a similar conclusion:

So our paper simply shows that we need to reorient a substantial fraction of climate financing to achieve measurable objectives that are best supported through results-based subsidies. And how should those subsidies be allocated?.

If one is interested in reducing emissions of GHGs, the main solution is still clean electricity generation. And this is easily measurable. And failure to achieve this goal -- even if one spends any amount of money on soft objectives like green training -- dooms the rest.

Answer 1: government departments lack the ability to offer conditional finance. Answer 2: the projects being financed lack hard measurable outcomes, so pay-for-performance is impossible. We can do better.

There is lots of experience with pay-for-performance. India uses it domestically through Viability Gap Funding. .So why not use it in climate finance? The answers are seriously disappointing. .

The way that the rich countries providing climate finance operate is that they use pay-for-performance models as the key mechanism for their climate activities at home. But their international climate finance operates via grants and loans!.

Here's the summary. We need developing countries to invest in reducing emissions. And they need the help of rich countries to do this. But most of this climate finance is being allocated by grants and loans, usually using a "development" model. That's a problem.