Rethinking Energy Aid Mechanisms: Three Premises

  • Thomas C. Schelling
Part of the Environment & Policy book series (ENPO, volume 54)


This chapter discusses three key premises that characterise the current debate on climate change and the state of the world’s energy economy. First, the developing world is far more susceptible to climate change than the developed world. Second, the best defence for developing nations against climate change will be their own economic and social advancement. Third, the rich countries will need to provide financial support to help the developing world reduce greenhouse gas emissions without disrupting or interfering substantially with their own economies. New global institutions will be needed to mobilise rich countries to provide vital energy aid to poor countries, to represent the larger developing countries to help them decide how to share those resources, and to serve as an effective intermediary to channel the resources and monitor how they are distributed and used.


Gross Domestic Product Poor Country Develop World Rich Country North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agnew, J. J., & Entrikin, N. (Eds.). (2004). The Marshall plan today: Model and metaphor. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bittermann, H. J. (1971). Negotiation of the articles of agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. International Lawyer, 5(1), 59–88.Google Scholar
  3. Boswell, R. (2007). Resource potential of methane hydrate coming into focus. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 56(1–3), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatti, I., Delahaye, A., Fournaison, L., & Petitet, J.-P. (2005). Benefits and drawbacks of clathrate hydrates: A review of their areas of interest. Energy Conversion and Management, 46(9–10), 1333–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Childers, E. (1995). Financing the United Nations: Some possible solutions. Futures, 27(2), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Jong, C., Collins, D. N., & Ranzi, R. (Eds.). (2006). Climate and hydrology in mountain areas. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. DeLong, J. B., & Eichengreen, B. (1991). The Marshall plan: History’s most successful structural adjustment program (NBER Working Paper No. W3899). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Accessed 18 Mar 2010.
  8. Eichengreen, B. J. (1995). Europe’s post-war recovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gimbel, J. (1976). The origins of the Marshall plan. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Haas, J. (2007). 60 years of Marshall Plan aid: A critical appraisal from an Austrian perspective. Monetary Policy & the Economy, 2, 126–139.Google Scholar
  11. Haeberli, W., & Beniston, M. (1998). Climate change and its impacts on glaciers and permafrost in the Alps. Ambio, 27(4), 258–265.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, M. H. P., & Fagre, D. B. (2003). Modeled climate-induced glacier change in Glacier National Park, 1850–2100. Bioscience, 53(2), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hille, K., & Harvey, F. (2009, September 1). China’s high price for emission cuts. Financial Times. Accessed 3 May 2010.
  14. Hogan, M. J. (1989). The Marshall plan: America, Britain, and the reconstruction of western Europe, 1947–1952. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Horsefield, J. K. (Ed.). (1969). The International Monetary Fund 1945–1965: Twenty years of international monetary cooperation (3 Vols.). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  16. IEAGHG (International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme). (2007). Storing CO 2 underground. Cheltenham: IEAGHG.Google Scholar
  17. IEAGHG (International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme). (2008). Geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Cheltenham: IEAGHG.Google Scholar
  18. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2005). Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC). M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ismay, L. (1955). NATO: The first five years, 1949–1954. Roquencourt: North Atlantic Treaty Organization.Google Scholar
  21. Kipping, M., & Bjarnar, O. (Eds.). (1998). The Americanisation of European business: The Marshall plan and the transfer of US management models. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, S.-Y., & Holder, G. D. (2001). Methane hydrates potential as a future energy source. Fuel Processing Technology, 71(1–3), 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loewenstein, K. (1954). Sovereignty and international co-operation. American Journal of International Law, 48(2), 222–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. López-Moreno, J. I., Beniston, M., & García-Ruiz, J. M. (2008). Environmental change and water management in the Pyrenees: Facts and future perspectives for Mediterranean mountains. Global and Planetary Change, 61(3–4), 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maier, Ch. S. (Ed.). (1991). The cold war in Europe: Era of a divided continent. New York: Markus Wiener.Google Scholar
  26. Mason, E. S., & Robert, R. E. (1973). The World Bank since Bretton Woods. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  27. McDermott, A. (2000). The new politics of financing the UN. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Meier, G. M. (1971). The Bretton Woods agreement: Twenty-five years after. Stanford Law Review, 23(2), 235–275.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Russell, R. B. (1966). United Nations financing and the law of the charter. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law L, 5, 68–95.Google Scholar
  30. Schelling, T. C. (1958). International cost-sharing arrangements. In T. C. Schelling (Ed.), International economics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  31. Schelling, T. C. (2005). What makes greenhouse sense? Indiana Law Review, 38, 581–594.Google Scholar
  32. Sorel, E., & Padoan, P. C. (Eds.). (2008). The Marshall plan: Lessons learned for the 21st century. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Southard, F. A. Jr. (1980). Evolution of the International Monetary Fund. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 5(3), 425–469.Google Scholar
  34. Surrey, W. S. (1948). The economic cooperation Act of 1948. California Law Review, 36(4), 509–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UN (United Nations). (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  36. UN (United Nations). (2009). World economic and social survey 2009. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  37. US Congress. (1948). The economic cooperation act of 1948 (Publ. No.472, 80th Congress, 2nd Session). Washington, DC: US Congress.Google Scholar
  38. US NAS (US National Academy of Sciences). (2008). Understanding and responding to Climate change. Washington, DC: Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, US National Academy of Sciences. Accessed 23 Mar 2010.
  39. Watson, R. T., & Haeberli, W. (2004). Environmental threats, mitigation strategies and high-mountain areas. In: Royal colloquium: Mountain areas – a global resource. Ambio Special Report, 13, 2–10.Google Scholar
  40. Wood, R. E. (1986). From Marshall plan to debt crisis: Foreign aid and development choices in the world economy. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  41. Yumkella, K. K. (2012). Multilateralism and energy for development. In F. L. Toth (Ed.), Energy for development: Resources, technologies, environment (pp. 45–56). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Atomic Energy Agency 2012 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas C. Schelling
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public PolicyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations