NYT: More Lenders Join in Pledge to Safeguard Environment

[DeepModem Mom]

More Lenders Join in Pledge to Safeguard Environment
By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH
Published: July 6, 2006

Three years ago, 10 financial institutions — with Citigroup the only United States company on the list — announced that they would abide by the Equator Principles, a set of standards intended to ensure that the large projects they financed did not have a harmful impact on the environment or local population.

Since then, the Equator Principles Financial Institutions, as the group calls itself, has swelled to 41 members across the globe, including three more American companies: Wells Fargo, J. P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America. And today the group is expected to announce an expanded version of its guidelines as well.

The new principles will apply to any project with a capital cost of more than $10 million, down from $50 million in the original version, as well as to upgrades and expansions of older projects.

The expanded principles require an institution's financial advisers to vet new projects for environmental and social impact when they are being designed, rather than wait until they actually apply for financing. They also now include guidelines for labor practices on projects, and require institutions to report publicly on their processes for complying with the principles.

The original Equator Principles adopted most of the guidelines set by the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank's private-sector arm. That group recently expanded its own guidelines, and the financial institutions have adopted those as well....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/business/worldbusiness/06equator.html

[Tellurian]

1. Money Tracking, under the guise of DO-GOODERS.

Cut through the smoke and mirrors and what have you got?

-They've lowered the amount of money for review from $50M to $10M.
(follow the money)

-Checking if there are "really" employees.

-Oversight by a their own financial advisers.

All in the name of caring for the environment?

Pssssshaw! Environmental bridges for sale.

[w4rma]

2. Im not sure I see your problem with this. It seems, on the surface, a good

thing.

[goforit]

3. Well, this will be interesting to watch as time progresses.

[Tellurian]

4. On the surface, the article states the agency's involvement is for the

vetting (whatever that means) of the social and environmental impact of designs before beginning the financing process.

Rather, these guidelines are an indicator this is a huge step in globalizing wages universally, creating guidelines for universal human resource development mgmt etc. At the same time,controlling the approval/disapproval process of future environmental projects. Some worthwhile projects that will never get off the ground because they will be blackballed from funding. sic:< World Bank private sector arm>

As well as, the advantage of closer scrutiny of which corporations are investing their money, with who, where and why. Do you actually think banks CARE or ever will CARE about the environment when they fund deforestation of the Amazon Rain forest or Drilling in the Antarctic? Hell no- They care about the bottom line. How much money will they make and is the potential to make more namely, called tangible progress..

Not to mention these multifaceted, seemingly benevolent principled guidelines revolve around federal banking regulations, USDA, DEM, Army Corp of Engineers...DOD, National Security. Pure and simple, it's the privatizing of environment(al controls). Whichever way you slice it.

It's not a good thing.