I think the African nations want the money to go to nations struggling to cope with climate change, parts of southern europe got weather (heat) more akin to northern Africa for example.
End of the day it should be for AFRICA to decide how that money is spent, not for the Western nations who once saw africa as a colonial continent to dictate.
Of course if we don't stop using (or burning) oil parts of Africa will probably be unihnabitable, so the plan B could be that the populations of Africa most affected migrate to Europe (and elsewhere) (which is cooler) and the compensation is we grant santuary due to the fact we destroyed their homeland and they can't live there due to excessive heat.
Braverman may disagree, so she is welcome to be dropped off in 50+C heat if she is so confident that people can live there.
@zleap sure. The issue is trust, and it likely is in short supply on both sides.
Climate change is global, and we need to do the most effective solutions wherever they may be. Is helping Africa not get locked into generations of fossil fuels better than perhaps larger short term gains? Dunno. Who decides that, etc.
Tough questions
@zleap an example is here in my town of Wash DC. There was talk of a commuter tax paid for by the outlying regions. The benefits would be shorter/faster commutes for them. But the money would be assigned to the (wrongly assumed) less ethical City DC gov (not federal). There wasn't a way to ensure the money wasn't simply thrown into the city overall budget spent however.
@zleap
We need to price in the cost of CO2 release. But once that's taxed, where does it go? Who gets to decide how to spend it?
I can see Africa not wanting the tax money going to the big polluters (where short term it's easy to apply but probably costs more per ton to mitigate). And I can see the big polluters not wanting the money simply given to African countries without controls on how it's spent etc ( and perfectly same concern in reverse too).
Tough questions