Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
World Bank Invests Record Sums in Coal
Last year, $3.4bn was invested in the dirtiest fossil fuel despite international commitments to cut emissions
The World Bank said this week that a total of US$3.4bn (£2.2bn) - or a quarter of all funding for energy projects - was spent in the year to June 2010 helping to build new coal-fired power stations, including the controversial Medupi plant in South Africa. Over the same period the bank also spent $1bn (£640m) on looking and drilling for oil and gas.
Smoke bellow from the chimneys of Belchatow power station, Europe's largest coal-fired power plant. (Photograph: Peter Andrews/Reuters) However, the Bank Information Centre, which examined the spending, disagreed and said the figure invested in coal was $4.4bn in the fiscal year 2009-10.
The discrepancy is due to the World Bank not including in its figure a $1bn project in India which is funding power transmission networks for coal-fired power stations rather than the stations themselves.
Environmental campaign groups said spending on coal in that period was 40 times more than five years ago, and claimed there was an "incoherence at the heart of the World Bank's thinking about energy" that would damage long term attempts to cut emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases from such plants.
"At the same time as the bank is seeking to gain control of the billions which will be channelled to developing countries to help them cope with global warming, the bank is still lending staggeringly large and growing sums to finance coal-fired power," said Alison Doig, senior advisor on climate change for the charity Christian Aid.
"We know that coal is the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels - the one which most exacerbates the climate crisis which is having devastating effects on the lives of people living in poverty. We also know that by financing the building of coal power stations the bank is locking countries into coal use for the next 40 to 50 years [the life expectancy of the plants]."
The World Bank defended its payments saying that the figures for 2010 were distorted by two major coal projects in Botswana and South Africa, while over the five year period from 2005 the bank had spent US$4.5bn on coal power, and $12.5bn on renewable energy and energy efficiency - including a record year for these sectors also last year.
Coal plants were only subsidised when there were "exceptional circumstances where countries have few or no prospects for other energy sources," said Roger Morier, a World Bank spokesman.
"Our energy portfolio is increasingly oriented to renewable energy and energy efficiency," added Morier. "We are fulfilling our mandate of responding to the urgent needs of our client countries for access to efficient, reliable, affordable electricity, while also helping those countries to get on a low-carbon development path as soon as possible."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

11 Comments so far
Show AllBoldly marching forward...........to the 17th century.
Not going 'boldly forward' to the past, but taking the suicide express over the greedy cliff to a future, certain Hell.
World Bank Neanderthals proving that human devolution is accelerating. These wholesale destroyers need to be stopped one way or another.
The World Bank is a creature of the ruling elite.
Nothing should surprise you.
Obama is a creature of the ruling elite, too. And how many people on this web site fervently supported his election?
Is there any hope? Fuck NO.
If supposedly smart people get so taken in by the likes of Obama, you have to understand that without some violent action there is no change.
The choice is clear: sit on your ass, or burn the fucking place down.
Brother, the place is burning down no matter what you do.
. . . while the proverbial Nero plays the fiddle.
Quote: Coal plants were only subsidised when there were "exceptional circumstances where countries have few or no prospects for other energy sources," said Roger Morier, a World Bank spokesman.
The Kalahari desert is right there, it wouldn't have made sense to invest in a huge solar project instead?
Quote: "At the same time as the bank is seeking to gain control of the billions which will be channelled to developing countries to help them cope with global warming, the bank is still lending staggeringly large and growing sums to finance coal-fired power," said Alison Doig, senior advisor on climate change for the charity Christian Aid.
This reminds me of the bankers on Wall Street: create a crisis, profit. Why would the bankers of the world bank be any different? It's not just wall street, now it's the world, and they have an agenda to suit it.
My sentiments exactly.
They've got all that perfect desert space in India and in Africa and the world bank invest in coal which not only is expensive and dirty its an extremely finite product. Whatever coal resources those countries have it won't be enough. India and Africa will fall into internal and external conflicts when they start running out just like the US and China are in competition for the oil and the US has been in an occupying war for years in Iraq
But then that's what the bank is betting on because war is profitable too.
It is a crime that those with the cash, by virtue of their cash alone, get to set agendas that are critical to the health of the earth and to future generations.
Joe
It is a very old story, all those many dead organisms which have been buried, compressed, and are now coal, are being resurrected. The carbon in them, the 6 electrons-6 neutrons-6 protons or 6-6-6, is a tremendous source of temporal power and is totally corrupting. Thrown into furnaces, its flames powers the generators. The slave labor it represents feeds us, makes us fat and weak, makes us unhealthy. We, the world, uses the power for selfish purposes and will be judged accordingly. Who will have the strength to turn away from him?
That's a little too much "religious fanaticism" for me.