U.S. Energy Secretary Announces $350M for Clean Energy Tech in Developing World

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has announced an international agreement that will see developed nations give $350 million to developing nations. The Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative (REDI), plan will fund technology in the developing world, including solar lanterns, standards and labels for energy efficient appliances, and online clean energy communication tools.
Huh? Is this something the developing world needs? Yes many need better lighting (aka solar lanterns) but standardized labels and standardizations? It's not clear that this is solving any problem.
Also the problem wasn't really caused by the developing world but by the developed world. As the developing world develops their energy and pollution intensity increases so it would be best for them to adopt clean tech from the beginning rather than have to retrofit afterwards like we're doing.

Copenhagen climate summit: Gordon Brown says 'future of humanity' at stake - Telegraph

Arriving in Copenhagen, Mr Brown said: "Over the next three days the leaders of almost every nation on earth will gather in Copenhagen. Their role; their opportunity; their responsibility: to shape the future of humanity. It is a defining moment." To win around developing nations who are resisting limits on their carbon emissions, Mr Brown could back a deal for rich countries to give more money. He is now preparing to make Britain pay into another international fund to help poor countries limit the amount of their forests they cut down for logging and agriculture. Increasing Britian’s “green” spending is controversial because of the size of the Government’s deficit. As he arrived in Copenhagen, Mr Brown, painted an apocalyptic picture of the consequences of failure at the summit, saying that the world economy would suffer an unprecedented “catastrophe” if temperatures rise too far.

Green Ink: EPA Ruling Energizes Copenhagen, Horrifies Business - Environmental Capital - WSJ

In Copenhagen, the big news was the U.S. EPA’s endangerment ruling, which gives the Obama administration executive authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. The ruling could give President Obama more firepower when he comes to the climate summit, in the Financial Times. It also wins plaudits from European leaders, who see the move as a way to lubricate negotiations, in the NY Times. The ruling finalizes months of deliberation by the EPA, but questions still remain over just what the agency could regulate, in the WSJ. Or if it even wants to: “EPA regulation is no one’s preferred outcome — not even the EPA’s. Jackson said her agency and other administration officials would still prefer if Congress acted before they did,” notes the Washington Post. Of course this is par for the course to have the business-friendly Wall St. Journal noting business concerns above the need to address damage business does to the environment.