World Bank calls on countries to take urgent steps to protect 'natural capital'

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/09/world-bank-urgent-natural-capital?intcmp=122



Archerfish in a forest of mangroves, in the centre of the world's richest marine biodiversity, the Raja Ampat islands, Indonesia. The World Bank has called on countries to protect their natural capital. Photograph: Norbert Wu/Corbis



Countries must take urgent steps to value their natural capital – such as forests, peatlands and coastal areas – as part of their economic development, the World Bank has urged.

Placing a monetary value on natural ecosystems is a key step on the road to "green" economic growth, according to the World Bank, which published a report on green growth on Wednesday at a conference in Seoul, Korea.

By making such estimates, countries can develop policies that ensure the pursuit of economic growth does not occur at the expense of future growth potential, by destroying natural assets such as water sources or polluting air, rivers and soil.

Rachel Kyte, vice president for sustainable development at the bank, said that the patterns on which economic growth had been achieved in recent decades were unsustainable, because of the amount of environmental degradation involved.

[GliderGuider]

1. News Flash: "World Bank Discovers Greenwashing"

Rachel Kyte, vice president for sustainable development at the bank, said that the patterns on which economic growth had been achieved in recent decades were unsustainable, because of the amount of environmental degradation involved.

I don't know what's more remarkable about this - the fact that a VP of the World Bank is saying, out loud and in public, that global economic development is unsustainable, or the fact that she has apparently completely forgotten about the concept of Net Present Value that is driving the whole clusterfuck (of the global economy wrecking the global ecology) in the first place.

[xchrom]

3. i just KNEW there would be some great comments about this!

my first thought was -- they don't know already? and why? so they can get the right value when they sell it off?

[DCKit]

4. +1 Great minds think alike.

It's all about preserving value. The 1% are going to want their pristine refuges when it's finally time to bail.

[kristopher]

16. That isn't it at all.

When funding for a project is applied for there is a very specific set of variables that are allowed by law to be considered. It is extremely important for the good guys that a clear and consistent mechanism is established to ensure that the environmental impact of projects 1) is in fact considered, and 2) is considered at a legitimate value instead of one corrupted by arbitrarily established guidelines.

[cprise]

30. Then banks shouldn't be the arbiters

and their influence should pass along with capitalism.

If their value system (everything translated to dollars - no science please) takes hold for considering environmental impacts, then within legislatures and the courts the dollar will become the measure of all. Environmental campaigns will be further undermined in the media when they try to illuminate problems for which no established money-metrics yet exist. This will not work.

People do not rationally put dollar values on human services and artifacts, so there is no reason to believe we can do this for the whole of the biosphere.

[kristopher]

31. Leaving aside for a moment...

the part about science/vs the world bank's proposal, what do we do until capitalism does crumble? It might take a while, you know.

"Environmental campaigns will be further undermined in the media when they try to illuminate problems for which no established money-metrics yet exist. This will not work."

I don't understand what you mean, but it sounds interesting. Please explain it if you have time.



"People do not rationally put dollar values on human services and artifacts, so there is no reason to believe we can do this for the whole of the biosphere."

That's an interesting observation and I tend to agree, but I can't think of a better way of dealing with the reality that we face, can you provide an alternative idea?

[cprise]

33. policy

"I don't understand what you mean..."

I mean that the discourse over environmental issues will further lose any dimension it lacks, reducing more and more arguments into dollars and pushing out the science and peoples' willingness to familiarize with it. You can't reduce/convert the interplay of BTUs, precipitation, cloud cover, CO2-equivalents, albedo, biodiversity, thermodynamic efficiency, biomass, etc, etc... all down to a one-dimensional unit of currency (which itself is not scientific) and expect to make progress.

Its bad enough that politics has stuck its nose into ecology -- having Finance involved (they will insist on "partnerships" with lots of tantalizing PR) will just create a whole new generation of ecologists who are at best sponsored shills. This has already happened in the fields of "political science" and economics.

Have a look here:

These people were given the keys to the political culture, the power to define its terms and values, and look what happened. They need to be knocked off their pedestal and the pedestal recycled as fertilizer -- not given the power to co-opt or absorb more aspects of our culture and institutions. But monetizing the environment gives them exactly that; where greenwashing may work on some environmentalists and the public, this gives them some ability to plaster over the science as well.

My only big ideas for a mid-term solution is to foster a generalized suspicion in the direction of wealth and power (not just here on DU), and in so doing neutralize their ability to keep concocting circuses and shell games. With that, I think supporting a movement like Occupy is the necessary first step, attempting to put on the brakes just long enough to discredit the plutocracy and create an opening for structural change.

[kristopher]

34. That's more of a rant than an alternative...

Starting with the tragedy of commons as our reference, we know we have a problem to solve. How does that problem get solved. It is real, it is immediate and it is not going to wait for a revolution to occur. We either work to solve it within the system that exists or we accept the continued decline of global ecosystems while we dreaming of "what could be if only".

The proposal in the OP is an excellent step that brings currently unrepresented ecological stakeholders to the table when decisions are being made about what is "valuable".

Let's take an immediate example and show how this can work where the rubber hits the road. We want a carbon tax to discourage the use of fossil fuels, correct? *One* of the tools used to promote the carbon tax is monetized assessments of environmental costs. How far do you think we could get if we didn't make some attempt to put values on ecological systems like wetlands, mangrove swamps and coral reefs when we discuss potential losses. Without that, we are left with appeals to emotions that will simply be ignored. You can want it to be different, but that is and always has been the nature of humanity.

You don't have to like the way the financial institutions are run to understand the need to improve the existing system.

[cprise]

35. Please save the Chicago economics 101

for someone without a clue. I'm surprised you would be inept enough to try that here. 'Tragedy of the commons' doesn't square with centuries of industrial pollution starting with the proprietors' own land. Here in the northeast, there is ample evidence that economic valuation / private property doesn't prevent environmental destruction. Investors and executives are not looking for long term sustainability and they don't live near the factories.

If it weren't for public trusts and national parks, this country would be in far worse shape than it is today. For Tragedy of the commons to hold up to scrutiny, the primary state of private property today would have to be original habitat such as forests and prairie (a far cry from reality).

As for my 'rant', what this World Bank representative is saying is certainly no better.

[quote]We either work to solve it within the system that exists or we accept the continued decline of global ecosystems while we dreaming of "what could be if only". [/quote]
No, there are more choices than that. The existing system is a class of corrupt despots who are not held accountable for pretty much anything. So you can come up with whatever amount of nice official language you want, they will just use it to delay for another decade (to give the "new system" a chance to prove itself). The trappings of capitalism have segued to the status of a religion, with the invested "true believers" reduced to praying for miracles. They don't ever want to change from an extractive mode, because they're used to being rich and insist on their relative wealth being the only thing that matters.

Yes, OK, another rant...

Kristopher, the only thing that will get us out of the ecological crisis is a change in how we relate to each other as people. Do not continue to expect a group of people who cannot be allowed to fail to suddenly take on responsibility. They shirk personal and corporate responsibility... they sure as heck won't take to social responsibility. Just as they expect the average citizen to take the brunt of an economic crisis brought on by their hubris, they instinctually think the same way about environmental crises.

Any movement of "reform" within our current system of government that is effective enough to restore accountability (without which environmentalism is moribund) would necessarily be so devastating to the Financial sector that everyone would be calling it revolutionary with nary a scare quote in sight.


PS - Carbon taxes seem like a great deterrent, but tax breaks are de rigueur in today's political economy. It would take a Constitutional amendment stating that government cannot make exceptions to the tax code for the carbon tax to have a prayer of making a dent in emissions.

[kristopher]

39. You say there are more choices but you didn't say what they are.

Have you actually studied environmental economics (has nothing to do with "Chicago School, that is just a cheap shot on your part) or public policy analysis?

There are a lot of highly placed and influential people in global governance institutions who share every concern you have and care every bit as much as you regarding the negative impacts of world bank funded development of all sorts. Even if you can provide concrete steps that will put the world bank out of business by fulfilling their mission to alleviate poverty better than they are doing (that isn't such a high bar) it is only logical to try to improve the system in place until your solution is enacted - the two are not mutually exclusive.

As I said to hatrack below, instead of shotgun blast rants, it would be far more helpful to identify the block of nations who are obstructing the needed change and then hammer on them relentlessly.

Here are a couple of links that look in more detail at the problems.
http://co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/19

And from the bottom of that write-up:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/world_bank.html
http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.11033.aspx
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/09/banking_on_coal
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/climate-change-math-in-treaties-flawed-by-suspect-pollution-calculations.html

[kristopher]

5. How do you turn this into greenwashing?

Sure, we know that natural capital is important, but since when has there EVER been a systematized programmatic strategy to ensure that taking the value of this natural capital into consideration as a clear part of national policy planning?

Without such an approach you have what we have now - a system where there is zero value attached to the wider systemic damage that individual development projects are responsible for.

Your idea that the concept of net present value is "driving" development and associated environmental damage is very poorly formed. What is driving development is the desire to have more safety, security and comfort in life, goals that are in no way related to the concept of net present value. Development is going to take place, that is a given; so unless you are willing to trade places with someone living in 3rd world poverty your wish to deny it is hubris on a grand scale. I'd far rather see it managed properly so that the end result is, indeed, sustainable.

Despite your perception, Kyte is not saying in any way that sustainable culture is impossible to achieve. Your assertions that such a state isn't possible is disproven by the record of human development. It isn't inevitable, by any means, but it is certainly achievable.

[GliderGuider]

6. PLF

DHAC

I really annoy you, don't I?

[kristopher]

7. You are just promoting perceptions that have little validity.

Your addiction to "truthiness" over valid knowledge needs to be occasionally addressed to make clear where your reasoning is weak. It would be nice if you were not so confused, but someone has to be in such a state and it might as well be you as anyone else.

[GliderGuider]

9. The world is lucky to have you in it, kristopher.

How would we ever know what and how to think if you weren't there to tell us?

[kristopher]

10. Facts are persistant things GG

They tend to rise to the surface over time no matter the attempts to forget or ignore them. That's because they represent reality and reality will always prevail.

[GliderGuider]

14. Yes, that is indeed what I count on.

We apparently disagree on what "reality" is, but we're both completely sure we each understand it better than the other.

From my point of view that's what makes the world an interesting place. Whether someone is Right© or Wrong© on some obscure political web board isn't all that important - it's all just part of the Dance of Lila.

I've never been sure where your animus comes from, though I suspect that's too deep a topic even for E&E.

[kristopher]

17. There is always give and take in finding the truth

That is why the scientific method was developed. You choose to reject that, I do not.

[GliderGuider]

19. I don't reject the scientific method - it's quite valuable.

I just don't feel the need to follow it in everything I do or say. Life is far too broad and interesting to be jammed into that little box.

I do reject scientism. But that's a very different bunfight

[kristopher]

20. "I'm not in the study business, sorry. Ask kristopher if you need a study done." - GG

53. I call it a logical deduction. You may call it a hunch if it makes you feel better.
I'm not in the study business, sorry. Ask kristopher if you need a study done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112714178#post53

You've stated this same sentiment any number of times when confronted with proof that your wild-eyed contentions are not based on the evidence.

"Scientism" is belief in the scientific process.

[GliderGuider]

22. Scientism is a bit more than that.

The scientific method gave me my car, computer, insulated and heated home, all the trappings of Empire that make life worth living. I have a degree in computer science, and grew up in a household headed by a research biochemist and a physicist. I'm all for the scientific method.

Scientism, however, is a different kettle of carp, and not nearly as benign as your offhand comment would make it seem:

From Wiki:

Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable. (Emphasis added)

That is a fair description of the position I reject, because it limits (unfairly and unnecessarily, in my view) the topics that are deemed acceptable for investigation as to their "truth". You have picked up on the fact that I have a more elastic definition of truth than that. I'm a died-in-the-wool relativist, so the nature of "truth" is for me strongly context-sensitive. To you this represents "truthiness", while for me it's just another day at the office.

[kristopher]

23. As I said below

...my "training" has equipped me to distinguish between disagreements based on values and disagreements based on evidence.

The way one interprets the evidence exposes the nature of their values, and often the underlying beliefs that form those values. I have no trouble distinguishing these elements of your posts and my criticisms are leveled accordingly. You have every right to treasure the beliefs you come to the table with. However when you seek to defend or promote that view with the use of factually inaccurate evidence then it seems natural to me that the evidence is subject to challenge.

[XemaSab]

24. Why do you think your science degree is better than everyone else's?

I've got a degree in science and I am currently working as a technical editor.

Both my science background and my training in spotting errors cause me to call bullshit on half the stuff that comes out of your mouth.

How do you like them apples?

[kristopher]

25. You are more than welcome to support your "call" with reason and data.

You seem to have lost context of the remark about "training".

Glider Guider18. Actually, you are usually just pointing out that you disagree with me. You tend to couch that disagreement in terms of Right© and Wrong©, however.

I have a very different worldview than you. When someone has been raised in a binary, dualistic, zero-sum culture such as ours, and still subscribes to that framework as strongly as you seem to, it can be difficult to see others as merely Different©, since your training dictates that everything must be either Right© or Wrong©.

Response to Glider Guider(Reply #18)

kristopher 21. Yes and no.

Yes I am pointing out that I disagree with you, however my "training" has equipped me to distinguish between disagreements based on values and disagreements based on evidence.

The way one interprets the evidence exposes the nature of their values, and often the underlying beliefs that form those values. I have no trouble distinguishing these elements of your posts and my criticisms are leveled accordingly. You have every right to treasure the beliefs you come to the table with. However when you seek to defend or promote that view with the use of factually inaccurate evidence then it seems natural to me that the evidence is subject to challenge.

Since I don't see where you find the supposed claim of superiority you are reacting to, I think your apples are more of the crab variety.

[XemaSab]

26. Even though I don't agree with Glider Guider a lot of the time

I respect where he's coming from.

You're trying to pull some kind of "I am teh scientist here and I understand teh logic and my word is teh law" trip, but as a scientist I am down with the big tent.

One of the best classes I ever took was a class called inscape and landscape. This class was more valuable to me than environmental ethics in learning where different people are coming from and respecting those places.

The class was full of Carhartt-wearing forestry majors and dred-wearing environmental science majors. One of the things that we had to do for the class was get up and talk about our personal experience with nature. Predictably, most of the forestry guys brought in pictures from their duck-hunting adventures and most of the environmental science majors talked about how spiritual the redwoods were.

Three stories stood out to me.

There was this girl who looked like the ur-hippie of ur-hippies. She had long dreds and wore corduroy patchwork skirts and Guatemalan shirts and always looked like she had just come from a drumming circle. I never really had a lot of respect for her, but when it was her turn to give her presentation she talked about how she had been a sorority girl in New York state and she'd been in a terrible car accident and after a long, long recuperation she decided to renounce materialism and go protect the redwoods. Who am I to argue with this?

Another girl always dressed in a very stylish, sophisticated manner. She wore white dress shirts and black power skirts and pumps and she always had her makeup perfectly done. This stood out to me because the school I went to is very laid back and nobody dresses up. Like, for the guys a shirt with buttons is very dressed up, and for the girls anything more dressy than a nice tank-top will make you stand out. It turned out that she was a coal miner's daughter from West Virginia and she had grown up in a log cabin out in the woods that her dad had built himself.

Finally, there was this tiny little girl, she must have been about 5'1" and all of 85 pounds. She had these big blue eyes and this flowing white hair and this translucent white skin. If I was going to cast a play that had a fairy in it, she would have gotten the part. Well, she got up and she gave her presentation and the class was stunned. Like, a significant percent of the class were rootin' tootin' huntin' shootin' good ol' boys, and even they were stunned. She got up and she's like "Here's a FOX I trapped last month!" and she shows a picture of this poor defenseless gray fox in a leghold trap. She showed like 20 pictures of animals she'd caught. It was really something.

The moral of the story is that people might be coming from a place that you don't know anything about, and before you lay a heavy trip on someone maybe you should just consider the idea that you're poorly informed about them and maybe... just maybe... there's a time to hold back on judging people and just take in what they have to say. Then again, people who may seem innocuous up front might just kick your ass.

[kristopher]

27. Yep, definately crab apples.

You are (still) more than welcome to support your "call" with reason and data. As I've posted several times in this thread "You have every right to treasure the beliefs you come to the table with. However when you seek to defend or promote that view with the use of factually inaccurate evidence then it seems natural to me that the evidence is subject to challenge."

I'm glad you understand that "people might be coming from a place that you don't know anything about"; that is what is meant by "values" and "beliefs". And while it may have been a revelation to you, to some of us the diversity of the world is something we are deeply steeped in and very accustomed to dealing with. But we all started somewhere so I hope you understand that personal growth is a process.

However, personal opinion is not something that should be used to hide behind Xemasab, although that is often a strategy used by someone who can't reasonably defend their beliefs. Take the right to marriage discussion going on right now. Those who oppose gay marriage have a set of norms, values and beliefs that they are acting on. In order to defend the validity of their norms and the actual consequences of the choices they make to impose their will on others they must rely on reasonably connecting them to the real world. IMO the reason public opinion is shifting towards favoring the equal right of marriage for all people is that the attempts at defending the values and beliefs behind the norms of the righties are batshit crazy and cannot be logically connected to the real world. They simply cannot present cogent, reasoned argument supported by legitimate data in order to justify the norms they want all of society to live by because they are operating on false beliefs.

Their favorite tactic when they are exposed as having no basis for their positions is to hide behind a supposed "right" to their opinion. To which I say "You have every right to treasure the beliefs you come to the table with. However when you seek to defend or promote that view with the use of factually inaccurate evidence then it seems natural to me that the evidence is subject to challenge."

[XemaSab]

29. Says the person who is going around attacking people

and claiming to hold the only real truth.

I have been doing a lot of research lately on fundamentalist Christians, and your thinking reminds me a lot of theirs.

[joshcryer]

28. I'm not convinced in that, you routinely throw out the evidence showing us that we have no values...

...as a species.

That tells me a bit about your values, if you ask me.

[cprise]

32. Neoliberalism also holds that markets/capital

"constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints".

Getting back somewhat to the original topic, the bankers' POV wants to treat the natural world as mountains of money laying around so they can get back to the business of "growth". They increasingly reject any scientific truth that does not feed their global pyramid scheme of increased GDP and social stratification.

The environment has to be respected on its own terms and, like it or not, science is the only discipline that has attempted to discover and describe those terms in any systematic way. Finance is not about to start from zero in earnest to play catchup; they'll just do what they do with everything else they've been handed... amass a hoard and use it to beat everyone else down.

We've already been through the 1990s posturing of "corporations are nice now, we've learned the lessons of socio-economic justice and the bad old days are over for good." All that smooth PR and peoples' willingness to be cajoled into laying their principles in the dumpster has lead to where we are today.

[oldhippie]

11. Only Kristopher can have valid perceptions ....

The rest of us can only hope to observe him and learn, Grasshopper.

[kristopher]

12. Pointing out that GG is wrong

Is not a claim of perfection on my part.

Your personal attack is taken for what it is. Thanks for playing.

[GliderGuider]

18. Actually, you are usually just pointing out that you disagree with me.

You tend to couch that disagreement in terms of Right© and Wrong©, however.

I have a very different worldview than you. When someone has been raised in a binary, dualistic, zero-sum culture such as ours, and still subscribes to that framework as strongly as you seem to, it can be difficult to see others as merely Different©, since your training dictates that everything must be either Right© or Wrong©.

[kristopher]

21. Yes and no.

Yes I am pointing out that I disagree with you, however my "training" has equipped me to distinguish between disagreements based on values and disagreements based on evidence.

The way one interprets the evidence exposes the nature of their values, and often the underlying beliefs that form those values. I have no trouble distinguishing these elements of your posts and my criticisms are leveled accordingly. You have every right to treasure the beliefs you come to the table with. However when you seek to defend or promote that view with the use of factually inaccurate evidence then it seems natural to me that the evidence is subject to challenge.

[NC_Nurse]

2. Good luck with that. It seems over the years that people have gotten less

interested in sustainability instead of more. Scary.

Maybe the World Bank will have more pull with elites, but I'm not holding my breath.

[hatrack]

8. Another World-Class World Bank Fail

Cost of Kusile power station could soar, warns Greenpeace

South Africa — on the back of a $3,75bn World Bank loan, among others — is building two coal-fired power stations at a cost of R219bn and recommissioning three coal-fired plants to ensure security of supply.

Kusile would be the world’s fourth-dirtiest power station because of its size and geographical location in an area that is already heavily polluted, said Melita Steele, climate campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, at the release in Johannesburg of a report by the activist group titled "True Cost of Coal".

EDIT

The World Bank loan includes $350m for renewable energy. South Africa generates less than 1% of its energy from renewable sources.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=157244

Banking On Coal

EDIT

The bank's recently released draft Energy Strategy, which will guide its energy lending and influence partner institutions for the next seven to 10 years and announces its investment in coal, is very, very bad news. Although the proportion of coal to renewable energy is falling, the shift is too little too late. Back in 2004, the World Bank's Extractive Industries Review recommended that the bank "phase-out support for oil by 2008, and formalize its moratorium on lending for coal projects immediately." That was five years ago. Today, the World Bank strategy notes that "In some countries, electricity from coal is significantly cheaper" and the bank "could use its traditional financing instruments to support client countries to develop new coal power projects under certain conditions." Indeed, the Bank Information Center finds that bank funding for coal has increased almost 200 percent between 2007 and 2009.

But even if it saves costs in the short term, each newly constructed coal plant has a life of about 50 years, during which it will emit carbon; rehabilitation extends the life of the plant by an additional 20. So even as World Bank donor countries are fighting political battles to cut emissions, their dollars are funding new World Bank coal projects that will cancel out any hard-won gains.

EDIT

Yet even knowing coal's blemished track record, the bank is not only subsidizing coal projects but doing so to an increasing degree. During the 2008 fiscal year, the World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC) increased funding for fossil fuels by 102 percent compared with only 11 percent for what it categorizes as new renewable energy such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal energy and hydropower projects under 10 megawatts. On average, fossil fuel financing by the bank still accounts for twice as much as all new renewable energy and energy efficiency projects do, combined. Bloomberg News reported that thanks to World Bank financing, India's Tata "ultra mega" power plant will have the dubious distinction of being one of the world's 50 largest greenhouse gas emitters once it begins operation in 2012.

EDIT

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/09/banking_on_coal

Tata Mundra plant heads for top slot, with pollution catch

EDIT

Tata Power did not respond to an email. The IFC did.

"The greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt hour of energy generated by the plant were estimated at 0.75 tonnes of carbon dioxide per mw hour (750 grams per KWh), which is significantly less than India's national average of 1.25 tonnes carbon dioxide per MWh for coal-based power plants," said an IFC spokesperson.

In short, it's much better than what India has. And it should feel blessed.

"But India's average for CO2 intensity is abysmal and that's not an acceptable standard for justifying IFC's world class power plant investment," said Kendyl Salcito of the CO2 Scorecard initiative.

Even in the US, power plants using supercritical technology were found by CO2Scorecard generating between 0.87 tonnes of CO2 and 1.12 tonne per MWh.

The newest of them, IATAN U-2, averaged 0.91 tonnes for every MW hour of electricity, more than 20% higher than what IFC has promised for Tata Mundra.

EDIT

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/corporatenews/Tata-Mundra-plant-heads-for-top-slot-with-pollution-catch/Article1-707645.aspx

Yes, let's continue this discussion of the importance of preserving natural capital, while providing billions in funding for coal projects that will dump CO2 into the atmosphere and acid into the ocean for the next 50 years or more.

It's so important, preserving the environment and all that, and our actions show how committed we are! Why, we've hosted conferences and even created whole web pages about sustainable development and putting price tags on natural capital!

[kristopher]

13. I don't get your sarcasm

They are doing what they have been doing for decades.

They urgently need to change part of what they do - financing fossil fuel development of any sort.

There is no "dictator" that can make the needed change happen with a simple declaration, this is a collaboratively governed body.

They propose a specific mechanism that will make the needed change possible by giving those who want change a lever to use against those who do not.

If you want to help, find out who within the body is supporting the status quo and attack them directly instead of attacking the policy and economic tools needed by those who want effect the change we both desire.

[hatrack]

36. I don't get your lack of reading comprehension

The World Bank is, as it always has, providing capital for enormous and enormously destructive coal-fired power plants.

As the third article points out, even though it talks a good game about how it wants to improve efficiency and provide the best possible technology, the Tata article excerpted above shows that the plant in India won't even approach the best American prompt supercritical plants in terms of pollution output.

More to the point, the World Bank and associated lenders are making possible projects that are going to produce tremendous amounts of GHGs and ocean acidification, and are going to do so for decades to come.

We don't have decades to change course. We need to change course now, and we have a few years left in which to do so. However, good luck telling that to investors in projects like Kusile or Tata. "Stranded costs" - these are the costs that matter to the World Bank and the IMF. Think investors want to hear about how they're going to lose money because of environmental considerations that caused plant shutdowns? Think the World Bank is going to tell them that, or that they'll be hearing the same from the countries where these projects are located? Guess again.

"But natural capital is important", sez the World Bank. "Why, nearly one in every ten dollars of the Kusile loan is going for renewable energy!". So what? If they were serious at all about their new and improved stance on environmental, the ratio would be inverted.

In the mean time, as the World Bank slowly, grudgingly changes its positions (and after all, as you argue, we can only change the system from within!) year after year, decade after decade, millions and millions and millions of tons of more CO2 and mercury will enter the atmosphere from these projects, pollutants that would not otherwise have done so, had the World Bank really been serious about the environment.

In addition, putting a price on natural capital/environmental services provided for nothing by the biosphere is just another step on the road to the Chicago School-ification of everything. Since (as we now know thanks to Freakanomics et. al.) life is nothing but a series of incentives, we may now look forward to clean air bonds, rainforest derivatives and leveraged potable water buyouts. Anything, anything, to keep the economic bacteria growing within the petri dish.

[GliderGuider]

37. +100

[kristopher]

38. I'm well aware of the damage the world bank is responsible for.

Since that isn't in dispute reciting a litany of complaints against them is absolutely irrelevant to whether the policy in the OP is desirable or not. As already written:

They are doing what they have been doing for decades.

They urgently need to change part of what they do - financing fossil fuel development of any sort.

There is no "dictator" that can make the needed change happen with a simple declaration, this is a collaboratively governed body.

They propose a specific mechanism that will make the needed change possible by giving those who want change a lever to use against those who do not.

If you want to help, find out who within the body is supporting the status quo and attack them directly instead of attacking the policy and economic tools needed by those who want effect the change we both desire.

[The2ndWheel]

15. More and more of life under the very visible hand of the human market

Sad, but comfortable and inevitable.