World Bank Stepping Up to Curb Climate Change.. Maybe

 I'm back after some time off; four wisdom teeth were taken out last week, rendering me somewhat (if not totally) useless. But back to the issues..

World Bank president Robert Zoellick announced last week that the organization will stop funding to middle income countries for the building of coal fired power plants. What's more, the World Bank will only give loans to the poorest countries only after they have exhausted alternative sources.

The World Bank plays a significant role in financing major infrastructure and development projects worldwide in developing nations. However, they have been criticized for a strong focus on economic development without regard for environmental concerns, in particular the role that their development projects may have in global climate change. This program in particular has received criticism for not doing enough to help developing countries with alternative sources, and may in fact just be a so called "green-washing" of the World Bank's image, while they continue to go on with business as usual.

This argument, more importantly, highlights the crux of one of the most relevant environmental problems we face today. As research suggests, countries tend to develop more pro-environmental attitudes once they have achieved some level of economic success and stability, which seems to indicate that in order to create a more environmentally friendly global society, that the poorest nations need to be lifted out of poverty and into economic prosperity. This may come at a cost, however. If organizations like the World Bank, which certainly are doing their best to alleviate poverty and its associated miseries, they can not use traditional modes of resource extraction and exploitation to create wealth. If done so, the environmental costs will be enormous, and by the time that developing nations become developed, so much of our natural environment may be lost, and climate change so irreparably set into motion, that conservation efforts and environmental protection may simply have failed.

In order to meet the needs of nations seeking to emerge from generations of poverty, a strong commitment must be made from groups such as the World Bank and the IMF to economic development that is strictly based in sustainable development principles, with an emphasis on clean technology. If this is not done, our world and its future ten billion inhabitants may be left to a world strapped for resources and a healthy environment.

For a more controversial, though perhaps more truthful take on the World Bank and IMF and their role in alleviating poverty and encouraging development, check out this video..

United Nations Discusses Hydro-Diplomacy..

Last week experts in water scarcity and water politics met to discuss ways to avoid major political conflicts in potentially water scarce regions in hopes of recommending effective proactive measures to the U.N. In particular the talks focused on the Arab world, where water conflict will likely be the most serious.

For more information on water scarcity, check out this video from the United Nations..

Subsidizing the Oil Sands and the Real Cost of Oil

It is often noted by individuals who support continued fossil fuel use and development that alternative fuels simply are not cost effective. What is often ignored in that argument is the high level of subsidy which the taxpayer incurs in order to keep those prices down. What we pay at the pump, we think, is what we're paying for gas. This isn't correct. One of the most significant sources of government subsidy is in paying for the cleanup of environmental degradation. This fact is being brought into the nationwide debate over oil sands development in Canada.

Oil companies in the tar sands regions of Canada have left a massive tax liability at the foot of the Canadian tax payer. As it stands now, more than 10 billion in unfunded cleanup liabilities exist as the oil companies active in the tar sands region have intentionally ignored the funding requirements imposed on them. This money was supposed to be set aside in case they companies would need it for cleanup and restorations operations, but as it stands today, that money isn't there. This leaves the tax payer on the hook. At currents rates, the liability could total upwards of 6000 dollars for each tax paying citizen of Alberta.

While this is not the least bit surprising, as it seems the modus operandi of the oil industry to create externalities and pass their cost onto the tax payers, it should deeply bother any Canadian or environmentally conscious person to know that the largest corporations on Earth, and some of the most environmentally destructive, are disregarding their environmental responsibility while they take in record profits. It is necessary that environmentally exploitative companies be required to cover all of the costs associated with their actions, otherwise consumers will never be fully aware of the real cost of the products which they purchase.

National Geographic: Photo's from the Oil Sands

Japanese Nuclear Crisis; Political Fallout

As the situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant worsens, there has been a tempered response from most world leaders. German prime minister Angela Merkel announced this week that her government would temporarily suspend seven of the nation's nuclear power plants, but her response is not in line with international reaction. Czechoslovakia and France both responded by stating they would not yield to "nuclear hysteria" or reduce the role of nuclear energy in their countries futures. President Barack Obama stated he will continue to emphasize nuclear energy development, and while Chinese officials announced they would suspend nuclear energy project proposals temporarily, one can rest assured that such actions will soon be rescinded (see previous post).

The question then becomes two fold. Do American's feel that this crisis is justification to reduce the emphasis on nuclear energy, and is this incident reflective of universally applicable problems inherent in the technology ? The answer to the first question is difficult to answer. It is still too soon to know how American's feel in light of the crisis in Japan, but somewhat recent polls, such as this one from Gallup, suggest that a majority of American's support the use of nuclear power. The second question is a bit easier to address. The circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Japanese plant are unique. They were damaged by a once in a century earthquake (Japan is located in a major earthquake area) and a subsequent once in a lifetime tsunami. As a result, it is difficult to say how reflective this crisis is when looking at American use of nuclear power. What brought about this catastrophe has no bearing on potential nuclear energy problems in the U.S., though it does not mean that problems do not exist of a different variety.

While politicians will surely need to address the crisis in Japan when discussing future development of nuclear energy here in the states, it is clear that linking the disaster abroad with potential issues at home is unfair.

Economic Growth and Environmental Protection; Lessons from China

The Chinese vice-minister of environmental protection said this week that China is struggling to curtail environmental pollution, including carbon emissions, in the face of desired economic growth.

The simple truth is this: China shows us that no developing nation will sacrifice economic development at the hands of environmental protectionism. While small victories may be won, people around the world want the material gains of economic growth. As a result, the fundamental building block of economic growth, fossil fuel consumption,  is only trending upward, and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with them will only continue to rise.