Perhaps while we are at it, developing countries should spend billions driving model Ts, use thalidomide for pregnancy nausea, spray DDT on farm fields and construct entire railroads of steam locomotives, or better yet mule teams. We've learned a lot from mistakes made in developed countries, mistakes that have cost trillions to correct, and will costs trillions more. We know some things are destructive or inefficient and too damaging for rich countries, why is it "fair" to foist 19th century technology on South Africa? If they are investing so much in this "high-tech" coal plant (3.75 billion from the World Bank) why aren't they investing nearly as much in alternatives like wind solar or nuclear (all technologies that South Africa can and has produced.), instead this piece acts excited about pledges to spend 1/5 of this amount on wind and solar. Once a massive coal plant is in the ground- those sunk costs commit the country to either using coal for 50+ years or taking massive losses abandoning the plant. Also, M. Khaliquzzaman, on the issue of fairness, who do you think is going to suffer the burden of increased disease, drought, and storms? Rich countries? No it will be the poor of poor countries- so how much sense does it make for S. Africa to contribute to the problem with greenfield investments when they could lead the way with alternatives? Finally, do we really know what the CO2 footprint of people in developing countries is? When i was in B-Desh and India, large areas that were "forest" were stripped to nothing or a few twiggy trees and every village house was burning a fire all day everyday. Not to mention the massive unregulated brick "factories". I'm sure the footprint isn't the same per cap consumption in US or Europe, but just because it isn't measured doesn't mean it isn't happening.