April, 14 2011, 10:59am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kelly Trout, 202-222-0722, ktrout@foe.org
Sunita Dubey, 703-732-2559, sunita@groundwork-usa.org
New Report Details Consequences of World Bank's Fossil Fuel Binge
Bank’s pattern of harmful lending disqualifies it from role in climate finance
WASHINGTON
The World Bank continues its fossil fuel financing binge, evading environmental standards and worsening poverty and pollution -- that's the conclusion of a new report released today, just before the start of the World Bank's spring meetings in Washington, D.C.
The report, World Bank, Climate Change and Energy Financing: Something Old. Something New?, was authored by experts at six non-governmental organizations and examines World Bank Group energy financing in a climate-constrained world. Through a series of seven case studies, the report shows how the Bank's surge in direct and indirect fossil fuel financing and its support for large-scale energy infrastructure projects have poor poverty alleviation outcomes and call into question the institution's claim that it is providing leadership on climate change in the developing world.
Such considerations are especially pertinent as the World Bank revamps its Energy Sector Strategy for the first time in more than a decade, as President Obama requests more than $117 million in new money for the institution, and as the Bank seeks an influential role in the UN's new Green Climate Fund.
"The World Bank's legacy of environmental and social harm, evasion of safeguards and accountability, and questionable track record on reducing poverty continue to cause serious problems. Regrettably, the World Bank's draft Energy Sector Strategy looks set to maintain the polluting practices we document in this report: carbon-intensive, large-scale financing, with trickle-down benefits for the poor that are hoped for, but not often achieved," said Sunita Dubey of groundWork/Friends of the Earth South Africa, co-editor of the report.
"In an era of poverty and climate change, clean energy leadership is called for instead of dirty business as usual," said Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth U.S., co-editor of the report. "At a time of fiscal austerity and limited resources for international development finance, the World Bank is making a poor case for why Congress should hand it more than $117 million in 2012."
The report's conclusions include:
o Environmental and social safeguards apply to an ever decreasing proportion of the World Bank Group's financing portfolio;
o Even for projects where safeguards do apply, the Bank has not incorporated the lessons of past project failings;
o Deep questions remain about the World Bank's ability to meet its own sustainable development and poverty alleviation goals;
o The Bank's rapidly expanding fossil fuel financing is not alleviating energy poverty for poor communities.
The seven case studies profiled in World Bank, Climate Change, and Energy Financing: Something Old. Something New? examine:
o World Bank support for fossil fuels through infrastructure lending and financial intermediaries;
o the Bank's Carbon Finance Unit (which facilitates international offsetting and carbon trading) and support for the UN Clean Development Mechanism's Plantar project in Brazil;
o the role of the Bank in Nigeria's energy sector;
o the International Finance Corporation's loan for a coal plant in India;
o the World Bank's loan for the controversial Eskom coal project in South Africa;
o the legacy of Bank support for large hydropower and the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project in Laos; and
o development policy loans in Brazil and the Belo Monte Dam Complex.
The report is published by by Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale (CRBM, Italy), CDM Watch (Belgium), Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, International Rivers (US), Friends of the Earth U.S., groundWork/Friends of the Earth South Africa, and Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE, India).
It can be found at https://www.foe.org/world-bank-climate-change-and-energy-financing.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
WATCH LIVE: Sanders to Grill Former Starbucks CEO on 'Illegal Anti-Union Activities'
"We must not have a two-tiered justice system in which billionaires and large corporations can break the law with impunity," the Vermont senator said ahead of the hearing.
Mar 29, 2023
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is set to testify Wednesday morning before a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is expected to grill the billionaire on the coffee giant's scorched-earth union-busting campaign that has drawn hundreds of unfair labor practice charges and dozens of complaints from the NLRB.
"Let's be clear. In America, workers have the constitutional right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining for higher wages and better working conditions," Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said in a statement ahead of the hearing, which is scheduled to begin at 10:00 am ET.
"I look forward to hearing from Mr. Schultz as to when he intends to end his illegal anti-union activities and begin signing fair first contracts with the unions," the Vermont senator added.
Watch the hearing live:
Following Schultz's appearance, the committee will hear from a separate panel of witnesses, including current Starbucks worker Maggie Carter as well as former employee Jaysin Saxton, who was fired after he led a union drive at a store in Augusta, Georgia. Last April, that location became the first Starbucks shop in Georgia to unionize.
The NLRB filed a complaint in December alleging that Saxton was unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected union activity. Saxton is one of more than 60 union organizers fired by Starbucks since December 2021, when workers in Buffalo, New York voted to form the company's first union in the U.S.
Since then, nearly 300 Starbucks locations have opted to unionize in the face of aggressive pushback from the company, which has slashed workers' hours, withheld raises, threatened worse benefits for unionized shops, and shut down entire stores in an effort to crush organizing momentum.
Starbucks Workers United said that more than a dozen Starbucks employees from across the United States are expected to travel to Washington, D.C. to attend the hearing, which comes after weeks of stonewalling from Starbucks executives.
Schultz, who has been accused of nearly 100 labor law violations since early 2022, finally agreed to testify earlier this month under threat of subpoena. Schultz stepped down as Starbucks' chief executive on March 20, though he remains on the company's board of directors.
"The HELP Committee intends to make clear that in America we must not have a two-tiered justice system in which billionaires and large corporations can break the law with impunity, while working-class people are held accountable for their actions," Sanders said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Scam Is a Non-Starter': Dems Blast McCarthy's Latest Call for Painful Cuts
"Unsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Mar 29, 2023
Congressional Democrats reiterated their opposition to steep federal spending cuts on Tuesday after Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy issued a vague outline of his caucus' demands, which include more punitive work requirements for aid recipients and steep cuts to non-military spending.
The GOP leader laid out the broad demands in a Tuesday letter to President Joe Biden as progress toward an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a default remains nonexistent.
McCarthy (R-Calif.) called for another meeting with the president to discuss the debt ceiling standoff, which is a result of the House GOP majority's insistence on painful budget cuts as a necessary condition for any borrowing limit increase. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the U.S. will default on its debt this summer unless Congress acts.
McCarthy wrote that House Republicans' demands include "but are not limited to" cuts to "excessive non-defense government spending" and stronger "work requirements for those without dependents who can work."
On the latter point, the California Republican favorably cited former President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform law that doubled extreme poverty. Biden supported the law as a senator.
As president, Biden has demanded a debt ceiling increase without any accompanying spending cuts. In response to McCarthy's letter, Biden pushed House Republicans to release a detailed budget plan but stressed that spending talks "must be separate from prompt action on Congress' basic obligation to pay the nation's bills and avoid economic catastrophe."
Bloombergreported last week that House Republicans are in the process of "finalizing" a budget offer that's expected to propose capping spending "at 1% growth annually for a decade" and imposing more strict work requirements on food aid recipients. One recent analysis estimated that more than 10 million people could lose federal nutrition assistance if the GOP gets what it wants on work requirements.
Republicans are also pushing for legislation that would ease the permitting process for oil and gas projects.
In a Tuesday appearance on CNBC, McCarthy said he is prepared to recommend $4 trillion in total spending cuts—but he didn't provide specifics on which programs would be cut and by how much, drawing mockery from Democratic lawmakers.
"If he comes to the president's office with no specific plan, no specific details about what the Republicans want to cut, what are they going to talk about? The weather?" asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, tweeted in response to McCarthy's letter that "this scam is a non-starter in the Senate."
"Unsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes," Wyden wrote.
\u201cUnsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes. This scam is a non-starter in the Senate.\u201d— Ron Wyden (@Ron Wyden) 1680030424
Last week, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) released warnings from federal agencies that would likely be targeted by the GOP's austerity spree in an effort to highlight the far-reaching impacts of spending cuts the party has floated thus far.
"The draconian cuts would take away the opportunity for 80,000 people to attend college and impact all 6.6 million students who rely on Pell Grants," DeLauro said, citing agency estimates. "If implemented, 200,000 children will lose access to Head Start, and 100,000 children will lose access to childcare, undermining early education and parents' ability to go to work."
DeLauro wrote Tuesday that "Republican calls to cut government funding put everything from child care to opioid treatment and mental health services to nutrition assistance at risk for millions."
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy, echoed concerns about the potentially devastating effects of the House GOP's plans.
"The recent turmoil in the banking system pales in comparison to the chaos and harm that could ensue if House Rs force a debt-limit impasse and default: recession, lost jobs, and critical payments to seniors, veterans, businesses, families, and states unpaid," Parrott wrote Tuesday following the release of McCarthy's letter.
"A letter isn't a budget," Parrott continued, "so it conveniently allows House Rs to hide that these cuts—in basic food assistance, healthcare, and programs that fund child care, schools, and more—would go to cover some of the cost of more tax cuts for the wealthy rather than to reduce the deficit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Bank Collapses, US Regulators Urged to Impose Rules on Climate-Related Financial Risk
"If management at a wide swath of banks failed to properly address a well-understood risk, they cannot be trusted to independently address other complex emerging risks," argued 50 green groups.
Mar 28, 2023
In the wake of recent bank collapses and protests across the United States demanding financial institutions end fossil fuel financing, 50 climate, environmental justice, and Indigenous rights groups on Tuesday advocated for new regulations.
"We the undersigned strongly urge financial regulators and Congress to learn from the collapse and bailout of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and rapidly implement new regulations to mitigate against climate-related financial risk," the coalition wrote.
"Climate-related risks are moving us toward a financial crisis. But regulators have not taken adequate steps to actually mitigate those risks."
The groups' letter was sent to key leaders at the U.S. Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Economic Council, and relevant U.S. House and Senate committees.
After explaining how the SVB collapse is partly the result of poor management enabled by regulatory rollbacks under the Trump administration, the letter states that "this is only the latest example of a bank being wholly unprepared for a large and obvious financial risk."
The letter continues:
It is a stark reminder of the chaos that can unfold when a financial institution has high exposure to a risky industry, and of the fact that the leaders of major financial institutions are frequently far more concerned with their short-term gains than with robust risk management measures that ensure their safety and the safety and soundness of the financial system. As a reminder of the latter, senior managers at SVB paid themselves millions in bonuses hours before their bank failed and the federal government financially backstopped it. Here again, stronger rules—including the Dodd-Frank executive compensation rules that remain unfinished—could have incentivized greater bank attention to risks.
To prevent any potential for a cascade of bank runs after SVB's collapse, federal regulators have now effectively set a precedent of guaranteeing all bank deposits in all banking institutions nationwide, to be backstopped by the Federal Deposit Insurance Fund and then taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has begun lending at extraordinarily generous terms to any other banks with assets whose real value has been curbed by interest rate hikes—in effect, the Fed is offering a first-of-its-kind, get-out-of-bank-failure-free card to any firms that made the same foreseeable mistake as SVB. Regulators justified this extraordinary shift in the structures of American finance by relying on emergency rules in place to prevent systemic risk to the financial system. In effect, regulators argued that SVB's inability to mitigate one of the most obvious forms of financial risk—the potential for rising interest rates amid high inflation—constituted a grave risk to the whole financial system, and, thereby, the whole economy.
"If management at a wide swath of banks failed to properly address a well-understood risk, they cannot be trusted to independently address other complex emerging risks," the groups argued. "Regulators must intervene to protect the financial system from risks associated with climate change and the ongoing transition to a green economy."
The letter notes recent remarks from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about the economic and financial impact of the climate emergency as well as how, as it worsens, "banks of all sizes holding mortgage-backed bonds will see their assets drop in value" while "banks invested in the fossil fuel industry will eventually be saddled with stranded assets."
"Climate-related risks are moving us toward a financial crisis. But regulators have not taken adequate steps to actually mitigate those risks," the coalition warned, calling on U.S. policymakers to:
- Move with urgency and speed to implement proposed guidance for banks and financial institutions related to preparation for climate-related financial risks and to follow up with more detailed guidance;
- Rapidly move forward on rigorous exams for banking institutions, including for medium-sized banks, regardless of industry pressure for light-touch supervision of climate-related risks; and
- Please also see previous coalition letters recommending action on the Federal Reserve's and the Treasury Department's climate guidance.
"Banks cannot be trusted to independently evaluate and protect against the systemic risks of the climate crisis in real-time. They also cannot be trusted to avoid creating risks for other institutions and the financial system through their support for fossil assets and greenhouse gas emissions," the letter says. "This process requires regulators to set clear rules and ensure banks and financial institutions do not engage in unsafe behavior and do not create undue risks and costs for the financial system and the economy."
Signatories include Greenpeace USA, Lakota People's Law Project, Sierra Club, and Third Act—who came together earlier this month for a "Stop Dirty Banks" national day of action, the first elderly-led mass climate demonstration in U.S. history.
"Today is a major drive to take the cash out of carbon," declared Third Act's Bill McKibben. "We want JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America to hear the voices of the older generation which has the money and structural power to face down their empty, weasel words on climate. We will not go to our graves quietly knowing that the financial institutions in our own communities continue to fund the climate crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.