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.

Bush, World-Bank Pushing Bogus 'Clean Energy' Funds

By Abid Aslam, IPS News. Posted June 14, 2008.


Critics say the funds would finance 'clean coal' scams and weigh down developing countries with more debt.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
My Depression -- or Ours?
Tom Engelhardt

Democracy and Elections:
GOP Attacks on ACORN Are Based on the Fear of 1.3 Million New Voters

DrugReporter:
As the Violence Soars, Mexico Signals It's Had Enough of America's Stupid War on Drugs
Silja J.A. Talvi

Election 2008:
Too Much Presidential Power -- We've Got to Address the 'Unitary Executive' Question
Dana Nelson

Environment:
Dear Mr. Next President -- Food, Food, Food
Michael Pollan

ForeignPolicy:
Obama Talks Tough About Afghanistan; Here's What He's Really in For
Anand Gopal

Health and Wellness:
McCain's Medicare Cuts Would Mean Hidden Tax Increases for Millions of Americans

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Mexico Braces for Economic Blow; Immigration Adds to Complexity of the Issue
Diego Cevallos

Media and Technology:
John McCain Sows the Seeds of Hatred
Rory O'Connor

Movie Mix:
The "Battle in Seattle" and Beyond
Stuart Townsend

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Our Next President Will Transform the Supreme Court
Ellen Goodman

Rights and Liberties:
Former McCain Supporter: McCain Is "Unleashing the Monster of American Prejudice"
Amy Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
Why Everyone Loves Hot, Smart Older Women
Vanessa Richmond

War on Iraq:
In Biggest Oil Sale Ever, Iraqi Government to Put 40 Billion Barrels of Reserves Up For Grabs
Terry Macalister, Nicholas Watt

Water:
Can the People Who Live in Coastal Towns Ever Be Safe From Hurricanes?
Lizzy Ratner

More stories by Abid Aslam

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

WASHINGTON, Jun 6 (IPS) - "Climate Investment Funds" to be run by the World Bank and backed by the George W. Bush administration are drawing fire from lawmakers and environmentalists who say the initiatives will accomplish little against global warming.

Critics question whether the funds -- including a planned 10-billion-dollar Clean Technology Fund -- set out a clear way to reduce pollution, whether they provide the right type of financing for poorer countries, and whether the World Bank is the right choice to run them.

"The Clean Technology Fund has no definition of clean technology," said Kenny Bruno, international program director at the lobby group Oil Change International.

Bruno's is one of 121 organizations from 40 countries that on Thursday delivered a joint petition asking developing countries to reject the funds at talks this week in Bonn, the German capital.

In their view, the technology fund leaves open loopholes through which environmentally questionable energy initiatives could be financed.

"What they are really proposing is a slightly less dirty technology fund which will include financing of coal plants that are somewhat less polluting than the dirtiest plants out there," Bruno said.

Of particular concern to green groups is the prospect that the fund could be used to promote so-called clean coal power plants.

Proponents of the upgraded coal-burning technology say it qualifies as a "clean technology" because it produces sufficiently lower levels of climate-distorting pollutants than do conventional coal-fired power plants. Opponents disagree, adding that the new technology does nothing to minimize the environmental damage wrought by coal mining in the first place.

For many environmentalists, only renewable energy -- power drawn from the wind, sun, tides, or heat from below Earth's surface -- should qualify as clean technology. Any burning of fossil fuels such as oil or coal, they say, will contribute in some way to climate change because of the release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.

"Clean coal is a false solution," said Janneke Bruil of Friends of the Earth International. "It has nothing to do with renewable energy."

The bank has not been alone in defending clean coal projects. The U.N.-led Kyoto Protocol on climate change also endorses such efforts as helping to shift energy production from highly polluting power plants to cleaner and more efficient ones.

Also at issue is the type of financing to be provided.

The clean technology initiative is aimed at helping developing countries to pay for newer, cleaner, but more costly energy and industrial technology, and thereby to help wean them off dirtier but cheaper equipment. The Strategic Climate Fund, a second multi-billion-dollar endowment, would seek to help poorer countries to cope with floods, storms, and other increasingly common and severe symptoms of climate change. Plans for the funds envision a mix of loans, grants, credit guarantees, and equity investments.

Lobby groups warned that because some of the money would come in the form of loans instead of grants, the climate funds would saddle these countries with new debts.

"The bank's plans are unfair and unethical," said Janet Redman of the Washington-based Sustainable Energy and Economy Network. "The loans would further indebt poor countries as they adapt to climate changes caused mainly by the countries providing the loans."

Britain and Japan have committed undisclosed amounts to the technology fund and Arab Gulf states and others also have pledged support, David McCormick, the U.S. Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, told a Congressional committee Thursday.

The Bush administration is asking Congress to free up two billion dollars over the next three years for the technology fund, which it hopes to launch in coming months.

"We are aiming, along with our donor partners in the G8 and beyond, at a global effort of up to 10 billion dollars over the next three years with the U.S. as the lead donor," McCormick said in prepared testimony before a U.S. House of Representatives panel on monetary policy, trade, and technology. He referred to the Group of Eight major economies, finance ministers of which are expected to discuss the funds at their Jun. 13-14 talks in Osaka, Japan.

Lawmakers, however, assailed the choice of the bank to administer the funds.

"The World Bank has not compiled a record that most environmentalists approve of in its general operation," said Barney Frank, the Democrat who chairs the House of Representatives financial services committee. "It's like they do their environmental work one day a month and then they undo it."

Frank echoed environmentalists' complaint that the bank had spent much of its 60-plus years backing projects that caused pollution and just this year financed the construction of clean-coal power plants in India.

Green groups, in their appeal to developing countries, said responsibility for the climate investment funds ought to be placed not with the World Bank but with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

According to the bank, the additional cost of deploying clean energy technologies for power generation in developing countries could reach 30 billion dollars a year.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: pollution, renewable energy, world bank, clean energy

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


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:
If you are interested in protecting our diminishing open spaces......
Posted by: carbon-based on Jun 15, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I belong to a number of groups such as this but thought this was a good time to pass this info on! Help stop Bush from opening our wildnerness to developers etc.. His last act of destruction!

""Mining. Drilling. Chopping. Developing. In his last days as president, Bush and his staff are rushing to make administrative changes - without the approval of Congress - and could needlessly sacrifice millions of acres of wild lands.

With an unprecedented Million Dollar Match campaign, we can fight back like never before. But, D, that means we need wilderness supporters like you to sustain our work and help us reach $100,000 online before Monday.

Every dollar you chip in will be automatically doubled!

https://donate.wilderness.org/05/matchn/nB7XE1od1Unok?

Double your power to protect our wild lands from fresh and final attacks from the Bush administration!

The end is in sight of possibly the most environmentally destructive administration America has ever seen. But it's not over yet. We cannot let our efforts go down the drain with a simple presidential signature.

We can expect major assaults on our public lands in the next few months. That means the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could be back on the auction block. And millions of acres of wilderness we protected for decades – such as Utah's Red Rock Country – are immediately at risk.

The work of The Wilderness Society has never been more crucial – work that is made possible by supporters and believers like you. Our deadline to raise $100,000 online (giving us a remarkable $200,000 in new resources!) is just around the corner.

Make double the difference TODAY with a tax-deductible gift to The Wilderness Society.

Together, we can preserve America's wild places during this critical time - and for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Bill Meadows, President
The Wilderness Society"

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

Deaths per terrawatt year for energy industries. terra=mega mega
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 15, 2008 10:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
twy=terrawatt year
fuel........ ........fatalities...... ......who.......... ............deaths per twy
coal........ ........6400...... ........workers.......... .............342
natural gas. ..1200... ....workers and public...... ......85
hydro........ .....4000........ .........public............ ............883
nuclear....... ........31...... .........workers............ ..............8

Source: "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.

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

We only have 8 years to quit burning coal to make electricity
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 15, 2008 11:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power can save us from the collapse of civilization and extinction.
Nuclear is the one source of energy that is actually proven to work for base load
power that produces 14.7 million tons of CO2 LESS than coal per 1000
megawatts per year. Burning coal to make electricity is the #1 source of CO2.
Nuclear power is also far safer than coal. Remember that coal also contains
URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron,
Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of
these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores.

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.
How are YOU going to do it? Go ahead and invest YOUR money.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Preventing the fall of civilization is a daunting task, but not yet impossible. We
have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of
avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in
Six Degrees. We have to deal with enormous changes in where agriculture works
because of climate changes that are already unavoidable. Don't give up.

We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

Nobody is paying me to post this.

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

Environmentalists for Nuclear power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 15, 2008 11:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The low carbon source of the electricity has to be nuclear
to replace the base load capacity of coal.
Read: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6

ORDER FROM THIS PLACE ONLY: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
You will not find it elsewhere.

Its simple language makes the book suitable as a PRIMER
FOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES, teacher training courses, or
environmental discussion groups.

Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

AT A TIME when most of the media and politicians seem to be
brainwashed by antinuclear cults, it is refreshing to encounter a
book that presents the issues regarding nuclear energy in a clear
and dispassionate manner. In plain NON-TECHNICAL
LANGUAGE, the author, a French environmentalist trained as a
nuclear engineer, presents a primer, in large letters, of the
essential facts regarding all the major areas of controversy about
nuclear power.

Nuclear power is 30% cheaper than the coal power we have been
duped into using. We have 5000 years worth of nuclear fuel if
we recycle it rather than waste it as we do now. Nuclear is also
the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of energy available.

The French nuclear power industry is socialized, government
owned. Socialism isn't bad in all cases. Government employees
are good at following rules. To make nuclear power safe and
profitable, the rules must be followed. We can make nuclear
power work for us too. All we have to do is follow the French
example. The French government receives royalties from the
French nuclear power industry. It works for the taxpayers. Of
course the Republicans are afraid of the French model because the
French people pay 30% LESS for their electricity than we pay for
our electricity. France recycles nuclear fuel for many countries, at a profit.

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

Vulnerability
Posted by: circanow on Jun 18, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have we forgotten 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl???

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