Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Brilliant Plans to Destroy the Planet: The World Bank Tackles Climate Change

By Janet Redman, Institute for Policy Studies. Posted July 11, 2008.


The World Bank's new Climate Investment Funds will do nothing to help the climate; they'll just give the bank more clout.
Advertisement

President Bush and other leaders of the industrialized world managed to produce a masterfully vague, loophole-ridden statement on climate change at a Group of 8 summit held at a secluded resort on the banks of Lake Toyako in Japan this week.

Meanwhile, thousands of delegates from grassroots movements transformed tranquil Odori Park in downtown Sapporo into the central nervous system of a bottom-up response to ecologically destructive development policies. On the opening day of the G8 summit, activists from every continent joined Japanese environmental and global justice groups in the streets brandishing banners, flags and megaphones. Their message was unambiguous: "Climate Justice, Yes! World Bank, No!"

Their boiled-down slogans were in response to a communiqué released on the second day of the official summit that endorsed the World Bank's newly created Climate Investment Funds. The $6 billion pledged by the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan to these funds will do nothing to help the climate. Instead, they will give the World Bank an even larger -- and completely inappropriate -- leadership role on climate change.

Large developing countries, such as China and India, have clearly stated their opposition to climate funds being channeled through the World Bank. More than 130 developing nations issued a statement at climate talks in Germany in June that the United Nations, not the World Bank, should have control of any funds contributed for weathering climate change. If given to the World Bank, they argued, these funds should not count toward countries' obligations under the international climate change convention. By ignoring their unified position, the G8 support for this expanded World Bank role in climate funding jeopardizes efforts to bring developing countries to the table for a global climate deal.

Also offensive to developing countries is that the World Bank is asking the countries least responsible for causing climate change to take out loans to help pay for adapting to the inevitable impacts. According to the G8 statement, rich country "donations" to the Strategic Climate Fund will count toward those nations' obligations for development aid, stretching an already pitiful sum impossibly thin.

Piling more debt onto many already heavily indebted nations will mean less money for climate-related disaster preparedness, emergency services and food shortages in the future.

World Bank Climate Hypocrisy

The World Bank's effort to reinvent itself as the global climate crusader is a dangerous charade. With $2 billion already spent on coal, oil and gas projects this year, the World Bank continues to be among the world's largest multilateral financiers of greenhouse-gas-emitting projects in the developing world.

The new Climate Investment Funds proposed by the United States and others will house the Clean Technology Fund. Donations from rich countries will ostensibly be used to bring low-carbon technologies to developing countries, and clean energy access to their poorest citizens. But environmental groups have taken to calling the Clean Technology Fund the Slightly Less Dirty Technology Fund because of the bank's outright support for slightly more efficient coal power.

Predictably, the G8 highlighted its support for market mechanisms, such as carbon trading, as key instruments in fighting climate change. The World Bank has long favored carbon trading. The institution's zeal for this approach is not surprising: A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies found that on average, the bank rakes in a 13 percent overhead on the emissions deals it brokers.

The inconvenient truth behind carbon trading is that while companies in industrialized countries continue to pollute at home, they "outsource" their emissions cuts to countries with no caps. In other words, for every incrementally less-polluting coal plant generating carbon credits in a developing country, a dirty coal plant can be built next door. This accounting system may be profitable for carbon brokers like the World Bank, and less costly for Northern polluters, but it does nothing to avert climate disaster.

U.S. Role

Fiery protest in Japan was matched by a chilly reception among some members of the U.S. Congress to the Bush administration's request for a $2 billion donation to the World Bank's new funds. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, pointed out at a recent committee hearing on a U.S. contribution that the "World Bank is not seen as an institution friendly to the environment" and that it seems to "spend one day a month protecting the environment and the other 29 days destroying it." Still, it's likely that Congress will authorize the money.

It remains to be seen if U.S. taxpayers can match the vigor of global civil society groups gathered in Japan, or whether they will simply sit back as Congress prepares to throw $2 billion of their money out the window at a time of rising oil prices and economic downturn. People in the developing world hope, this time, they are paying attention.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: climate change, world bank, g8

Janet Redman is a researcher for the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., where she provides analysis of the international financial institutions' energy investment and carbon finance activities. She is the author of the recent report "World Bank: Climate Profiteer."



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Neoliberalism to the End ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jul 11, 2008 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hypocrisy of the United States surely does take the cake. The Bush Administration has singlehandedly set the fight against global warming back 8 years.

James Hansen wants oil executives tried for crimes against humanity , I would include the entire Bush Administration as well.

James Hansen: Oil Company CEOs Are Criminals Against Humanity

I'm tired of Democrats treating these people like they are anything but evil. We need to put a stake through their hearts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Padlock the 'World' Bank and 'World' Government
Posted by: edith on Jul 11, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
World Bank=World Govt. Let the market decide the best power/energy sources. There is no need for a "World" Bank to make decisions for consumers. Farmers made these decisions on their own for thousands of years, and were better off than the disease plagued inhabitants of Third World favelas who can no longer make it on the land thanks to international bankers and their "NGOs".

The World Bank is a relic of the Communist-infested FDR/Truman State Dept which was obsessed with a post-war world govt. Would most Africans prefer pre-WWII colonialism to the AIDS starvation situation they find themselves under "freedom" fighters like Mugabe or even Mandela? I think most would. People care about safety and a full stomach.

The "West" should get out of Africa (and Latin America), totally and completely. No "aid" of any sort. The people there will revert back to a more healthy,natural life unencumbered by the blessings of international capital that exploits Africans and turns them into a lower-level version of US' own dysfunctional low income African-American population.

The World Bank exists intentionally or not as a boondoggle for international bureaucrats who make exhorbitant salaries(E.g., neo-con and zionist Bush/toadie cheerleader Wolfowitz and his mistress). Ordinary people end up with economies distorted by decisions made in DC and NY by Wall St and London bankers.

Builders of destructive dams love the World Bank; flooded out peasants who now live in hovels in Third World holes known as "cities" don't.

Abolish the UN; abolish the World Bank; reduce the defense and foreign affairs budget of the US to what it was in 1790 in inflation adjusted dollars.

And keep "international relations" majors like Barry Hussein Obama, Columbia '86 (no Barry did not dream of being a 'community organizer' as a young man), or superficial "experts" like McCain(saw Vietnam from 40.000 feet above a target and he's an "expert"?) out of office and in real jobs like picking tomatoes (tomatoes ARE good for you!).

Ron Paul for President or even better, no President at all. Put World and Continentals Governments where they belong-in a Museum!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EXTINCTION means Republicans die too.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 11, 2008 10:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]