Answer the question with the reading below:

Question:

Considering that new capital always incorporates new technologies, why is "fungibility" more problematic for an exchange in a poor country that is recovering economically than for one that is poor and stagnant?

Reading:

Switzerland, one of the world's wealthiest nations, has an ambitious climate goal: It promises to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. But the Swiss do not intend to reduce emissions so much within their own borders, rather the European country is resorting to its large coffers to pay poorer nations, such as Ghana or Dominica, in order to reduce their emissions. And give Switzerland the credit. Here's an example of how it would work:

Switzerland is paying to install efficient lighting and greener stoves in up to 5 million homes in Ghana;

These facilities will help households stop burning wood for cooking and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, Switzerland, and not Ghana, would count those emission reductions as part of its progress against climate goals. Veronika Elgart, deputy director for international climate policy at the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, said such agreements could lead to additional climate action and benefit host countries.

However, there are questions about whether this mechanism is fair, a central theme of the discussions at the United Nations climate summit taking place this week in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. One of the main issues of diplomatic friction centers on the extent to which rich countries should compensate poorer countries for the damage caused by climate change and help them adapt, especially since the world's rich nations are disproportionately responsible. of carbon dioxide emissions that warm the planet. If other nations follow Switzerland's lead, critics say, it could set back climate action in the world's richest countries while work focuses on reducing emissions in poor countries. In addition, they could take advantage of projects that these countries would have carried out anyway, with or without foreign financing.

"It's a way of transferring responsibility for reducing emissions," said Crispin Gregoire, who was ambassador to the United Nations from Dominica, a small island country of 72,000 that reached an agreement with Switzerland last year. "Instead of reducing its own emissions, Switzerland turns to other countries (that have very low emissions) to meet that obligation." At the world climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland last year, Bolivian President Luis Arce called the idea a kind of "carbon capitalism." The 2015 Paris Agreement allowed countries to temporarily cooperate to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and nations have made progress in setting some of the rules in global talks, including creating guidance to make sure that emission reductions are not double counted.

But much of the actual operation still needs to be fine-tuned, such as how to evaluate and monitor projects. These issues are part of the broad agenda of the climate negotiators meeting this week in Egypt. Switzerland has explicitly stated that it will not achieve its emissions reduction targets on its own and that it needs to seek at least a third of its quota elsewhere. The country already generates most of its electricity from renewables hydroelectric and nuclear making it difficult for it to achieve further emissions reductions. So far, Switzerland has signed agreements with eight countries (Peru, Ghana, Senegal, Georgia, Vanuatu, Dominica, Thailand and Ukraine) and is in talks with at least three more countries. Japan and Sweden have indicated their intention to develop similar agreements. The possibility that such deals could end up funding projects that were already underway is worrying, according to Thomas Day, a carbon markets expert at the NewClimate Institute, a Cologne, Germany-based organization that advocates for bolder climate policies.

For example, Switzerland's initial goal was to invest in the energy efficiency retrofit of public buildings in Georgia; however, this country already had those improvements planned. That meant they would have given Switzerland the credit for an emissions reduction that would have happened anyway, Day said. Then Georgia would have to take on more difficult or expensive projects to continue to meet its own goals, while in effect giving the Swiss credit for the simpler actions. Wealthy nations like Switzerland have an obligation to help developing countries without asking for anything in return, said Jade Begay, climate justice director for NDN Collective, an indigenous-led social and environmental organization based in Rapid City, South Dakota. . The rule that allows such deals is "dangerous," Begay said, because it allows richer countries to "keep polluting and carry on as usual, which is the root of the problem." Mischa Classen, director of the KliK Foundation, a non-profit organization that works with the government to implement the agreements, warned that Switzerland plans to finance more ambitious policies in Georgia, such as investment in energy efficiency for homes.

Georgia can authorize or reject projects under the agreement, said Elgart, the Swiss government official. Partner countries, he said, are "the ones in charge." Switzerland will also verify that such projects cannot be done in any other way, he added. Georgia's Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture did not respond to a request for comment. The debate comes at a time when the world's rich nations are facing criticism for failing to compensate poorer nations, as promised, so they can better adapt to rising temperatures. According to an analysis by the Overseas Development Institute, Switzerland's contributions to global climate finance are almost 40 percent below what its share of an internationally agreed target of $100 billion a year would be. It is also falling behind on its emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.