World Bank funds one of the planet’s dirtiest fuels

Green Death by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times.

On April 8, 2010, the World Bank approved a controversial $3.75 billion loan to South Africa, most of it to help build 4,800 MW of coal power capacity – the world’s seventh largest coal plant. The Medupi plant will be Africa’s first supercritical power station but is still expected to annually spew an estimated 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. The loan has been made to Eskom, South Africa’s public utility which says that it will consider carbon capture and sequestration, should the option become viable.

The decision was made amidst powerful dissent from many environmentalists and economists who condemned it as “one of those stereotypical development disaster stories” that would exacerbate climate change and, in the long term, do nothing for poverty alleviation. Many South African activists have also charged that the Medupi power plant will not reduce electricity prices for the poor, but flood money into the pockets of corporations that have “sweetheart” deals with Eskom, and are currently being provided the cheapest electricity in the world.

The South African government, on the other hand, has been fiercely defending the loan as critical for the future economic growth prospects of not only the nation but also that of its neighbors – more than 60% of the electricity in the sub-Saharan region is produced by South Africa, with Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, depending on Eskom for their electric power. South Africa, a more advanced nation in the region, has been repeatedly wracked by power outages in 2007-2008 and over 25% of its population still has no access to electricity.

According to a recent report by the Environment Defense Fund, the World Bank and other international public financial institutions have, over the past 15 years, helped to fund about 88 coal plants, spending over $37 billion dollars. In fact, most of these institutions have, as a trend, increased their funding for fossil fuel over the years.

The balancing act: Economic Growth vis-à-vis Climate Change

The Medupi debate illustrates the challenges faced by developing nations struggling between two critical objectives – providing affordable energy to haul their citizens out of poverty and yet maintaining the commitment to preserve the planet.

South Africa’s pressing energy needs and the lack of near-term feasible low-carbon alternatives, in many ways, justifies the Medupi project. Contemplate not having access to electricity – considering only the most fundamental needs, it would mean no access to clean-drinking water; using primitive means to cook, and keep warm; and “turning on” lamps for lighting. This energy-paucity not only makes life harder but also takes a human toll. According to a report by the world-health organization, indoor air pollution (largely due to use of primitive bio-fuels such as wood, waste, coal etc.), leads to 1.6 million deaths annually. In another assessment, waterborne diseases are the leading cause of death accounting for over 3.4 million lives annually.

Affordable electricity is necessary to exit from this course of poverty and death. But affordable electricity, as we know it today, is not clean. Without access to clean and at the same time cheap energy technologies, developing nations like South Africa (which incidentally, also has large coal reserves) will continue to turn to coal.

The dilemma, of course, is that such poverty alleviation efforts driven by coal energy are short-lived and could prove to be a recipe for an even more vulnerable future – especially since climate change is expected to have a worse impact on the least developed countries first. A country like South Africa, rich in solar and wind potential, should perhaps be first prodded by the World Bank to explore and initiate sustainable long term development projects that do not compromise its future. And this is a course that every nation across the globe should take. However, perhaps it is here that we all falter.

Global Climate Battle…

Although both the United States and Britain abstained from voting, they expressed unequivocally that this should be the “World Bank’s final coal battle.” Earlier this year, the U.S. also wrote to the World Bank recommending it to stop funding coal power in developing economies. This has been seen by many as duplicitous since both the developed economies are still building coal power plants in their countries.

The U.S. finances coal power through U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Department of Energy. Currently it has 600 coal plants which provide almost half of its electricity. Although the net capacity of coal plants in the U.S. has changed little, the total output has increased over the years (27% between 1990 and 2007). Additionally, 60 new coal plants have been proposed and are in various stages of planning.

The Medupi debate has deepened further the fissure formed at Copenhagen between the developed and the developing world. Moreover, it underscores the larger struggle in defining responsibilities that countries – both industrialized and those growing – need to take-on to mitigate climate change.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under emerging countries

3 responses to “World Bank funds one of the planet’s dirtiest fuels

  1. brobertson1509

    It’s easy to criticize the world bank for funding this coal plant, but this article brings up a great point. I think just about everyone in the US would choose dirty energy over no energy. If this is the most economical way to get electricity to those in South Africa who don’t currently have access, then it makes sense. It’s ironic that the US, who has not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, is so adamant in not supporting this. I would be curious to know what the US opinion of this project would be if 25% of the US population was without electricity and clean water. Until the US has a federal regulation about carbon emissions reduction, their opposition to projects like this doesn’t really make me think that they care more about the environment in South Africa than increasing the US GDP.

  2. sauronseye

    The article definitely did highlight the rift between developed and developing countries. According to world bank estimates, there are roughly 1.6 billion people who have no access t0 electricity.Considering the great demand for electricity around the globe and the fact that coal is cheap and abundant, coal plants are going to be built with or without World Bank support particularly in developing countries. By providing financial support , the World Bank can ensure that new coal projects being implemented have sufficient funds to invest in being environment friendly thus preventing the proliferation of cheaper, dirtier type of coal plants. Even though such funding might seem contradictory to its claims of supporting sustainable development, renewable energy alone cannot provide all the electricity needed by developing countries and a mix of energy sources will be needed for decades to come till renewable energy sources become viable as long term replacements to fossil fuels. Thus, while developing new coal plants may seem to many as aggravating climate change, the lack of viable alternatives due to lack of funds and increasing demand for electricity in developing countries will ensure that a complete shift to sustainable energy sources is still a long way away from fruition.

  3. Very interesting. It’s true that South Africa needs to use it’s resources carefully and the first comment has a point that basic living conditions are a priority over long term ailments, like clean water over air pollution. However, South Africa is not a prime example of a country building infrastructure to support it’s poor. Would having more energy available help the ones who need it most? Many of the energy structure will support the Rugby fields or the upcoming World Cup facilities, when what the country really needs is more hospitals. Read this article for more on that…

    “On a freezing night last July, Sindiswa, 17, lay curled in a fetal position in bed No. 7 of a state-run hospice in central Bloemfontein […] a few blocks away, the roars of rugby fans erupted from Free State Stadium” [Time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1952335,00.html]

    This is similar to China building the Three Gorges Dam that relocated 1.24 million (many poor) residents. The difference is that China has enough money and air problems to start investing in renewable energy (very high wind production, too) and the dam will likely help many citizens. Perhaps more problems with the river but less pollution from coal plants. I’m not sure the new plants in South Africa will close the gap between the rich and poor in terms of living conditions and income, but how can the first-world demand they build expensive green energy plants? Maybe it would be better to give monetary incentives specifically for green energy to make it easier to build wind turbines or solar panels. But it’s nearly impossible to impose demands on how they can use that energy and who gets the most out of it. For now, the rich and privileged have distinct advantages in South Africa. More energy will not greatly help the margins and poor part of the population, new social reforms and better management of resources that target the needy are required.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s