Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Will Not Provide Financing For New International Coal-Fired Power Plants
Dorianny writes "The Treasury Department declared it would no longer support any new coal-fired power plants around the world. By leading a coalition of like-minded countries including several European ones that have already announced similar intentions, they will effectively be able to block the World Bank and other international development banks from providing financing for new coal-fired plants. The policy is unlikely to amount to any real change as 75 percent of proposed coal-powered plants are in China and India, which do not rely on outside financing. It seems to me that the poorest, most underdeveloped nations that contribute the least to global emissions are the ones getting the short end of the stick from this policy."
It seems to me that the poorest, most underdeveloped nations that contribute the least to global emissions are the ones getting the short end of the stick from every policy ever.
They are contributing least to global emissions, lets keep it that way.
The poorest most underdeveloped countries will increase their carbon outputs the most unless they skip coal. Even if you buy into letting them do it today you are just setting them up to have replace that infrastructure later. If those countries have coal reserves the let them sell them to nations that already coal plants and use the money to buy cleaner technologies.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Why would the US Treasury fund any power plants, anywhere? No wonder the US government and budget is in such a mess. WTF are these people doing?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It's not like getting a loan is a right, and that's what this essentially is. The US and EU have decided they won't lend money to build new coal power plants. Seems like a reasonable enough policy, and one that's fully within their rights as the people lending the money in the first place.
They were only going to spend the money on weapons as usual!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
If they contribute the least to global emissions now, their development should take the form where they remain contributing little to global emissions. Hopefully more advanced nations will be able to reduce their dependency on coal in the meantime.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I wasn't aware that the World Bank's loans were hand-outs. Someone should write to all those countries that are paying out a sizeable fraction of their GDP in interest payments.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
No surprise. It is consistent with the President's previously expressed views.
Coal-state lawmakers seek to block EPA power plant rules
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Why aren't we poor because of our own incompetence, corruption, and lawlessness?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
They are the most profitable customers to help keep the price of coal from collapsing. All the demand from the little countries just doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense to support them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And more in 10 other Asian countries. This is a twofer: Let's loose money by not making loans on a nearly fool proof business model and let those countries become ignore the U.S more for their new friends who will do what they want and we don't!
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/will-china-build-hundreds-of-new-coal.html
The Bloomberg link is broken. Here's a another, with misleading headline:
http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/chinas-power-sector-heads-towards-a-cleaner-future/
It sounds like the power-plant builders with have the coal-burning anyway. That is what other comments seem to suggest.
The question is no longer IF there is coal-burning, but how. How is important, right? Because there are some clean-ish ways to burn it and there are some very cheap, very polluting ways to burn it. Given a 3rd world budget and engineering do you think they are going to spend the time and talent making it clean-ish, or do you think they are going to minimize short-term expenses and maximize short-term profits?
It is a drop in the bucket of our policies, according to other comments, so there is no "real" economic cost.
In conclusion this is a decision that has the superficial appearance of being green while maximizing levels of pollution for tomorrows world. Doesn't that qualify as "politics as usual"?
There is zero reason whatsoever to create new coal burning plants. Use that same money to offer then nuclear power plants. It would cost less lives and create technical jobs as opposed to creating mining jobs.
Doesn't Iran keep telling us that's what they want to do and we keep threatening to bomb them?
It seems to me that the poorest, most underdeveloped nations that contribute the least to global emissions are the ones getting the short end of the stick from this policy
So the World Bank provides money for wind, solar and hydro-electric. The only thing this really hurts is coal miners. Yes, I feel sorry for miners who may loose jobs because of decreased demand, but if a country's economy is based on coal-mining, then they got serious issues (of course, if they are the poorest, most undeveloped nations, they have economic problems anyways, so I guess that is a circular argument).
This sounds pretty reasonable to me - the World Bank will fund power plants around the world, but they have to meet certain enviornmental standards? How does that hurt anyone?
It's a matter of degree, mostly.
And keeping elites accountable goes a long way to reining in the worst abuses.
Yeah, that definitely struck me as some spectacular American Exceptionalism double-think there.
Cynical Idealist
Chinese and indian power companies could and did rely on US financing before, and now they won't be able to. New restrictions mean they will be forced to get more such big-ass loans from unrestricted sources, such as local banks or even state-owned banks. This effectively reduces such country's capacity for development, but in the long run might even be beneficial as interests circulating internally. Only time can tell.
I'll have China running on 20% clean energy in 15 years with nothing more than raw steel.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Since scrubbers cost more than simpler systems, this helps ensure those who do build coal plants don't build clean ones.
Nice gesture....
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Actually, the total cost of a coal power-plant is in the ballpark of wind energy as of 2013. That's the price _excluding_ the cost of carbon pollution. The price of coal will probably go up in the future, and wind will definitely continue to decrease in price. So it's really not such a big deal for the communities using the electricity. The policy will make it harder for the fossil-fuel lobby to get power-stations built that will buy their products for 50 years.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Seriously, who cares about these poor, underdeveloped countries and why should we be helping them in any way? They are poor because of their own incompetence, corruption, and lawlessness.
Ah, you think that has nothing to do with being exploited and robbed bare for centuries? Somehow the countries with some of the most natural resources (esp gold, silver, diamond, but also copper, uranium, etc) are among the world's poorest. Go figure.
Conversely, this history of looting and pillaging is a large factor in why the currently wealthy countries became, well, wealthy.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Don't forget it's crony sibling, "job creation". Politicians love to show how some tax money is being used to keep people working or local businesses expanding. Doesn't matter if it is this Luddite way of generating power, "it's about jerbs!"
The person giving the charity gets to decide how the money is used. There is nothing wrong with this.
Chinese citizens have a lot of firsthand experience with the effects of coal pollution. I don't think they want to support increased coal usage in other countries.
Why would the US Treasury fund any power plants, anywhere? No wonder the US government and budget is in such a mess. WTF are these people doing?
You think they dish out foreign aid so we can all hold hands and sing kumbayah? Because Money = Influence, that's why. It allows us to influence how the votes go at the U.N., what communications passing through a nation's territory get tapped, what routes are available for U.S. military supply shipments, what policies on drugs or extradition get implemented in those countries.
If America can't look in the mirror to examine itself, we'll use a foreign example. With China's increasing wealth has come increasing expenditures on foreign aid, and that is buying them access to ports and listening outposts around the globe, and you can bet their influence will keep expanding as long as the money keeps flowing.
We live in the first world... You're starving we don't care! You're freezing it plenty warm here. We live in the first world... You can't polute except when you take our trash. We dump our cheap grain and bankrupt your farmers. We live in the first world... And you ain't! You want a loan sell me your resources for pennies on the dollar. We live in the first world and you ain't.
The area around coal plants become more radioactive than nuclear power plants over time - because most coal contains small amounts of thorium which gets released into the air when the coal is burned and settles in the area around the coal plant.
Burning coal is the main reason why pregnant women can't eat most fish. It is also why a diet of just fish is bad for you rather than being the healthiest diet. Why? Because it releases tons of mercury into the ocean.
And of course, burning coal in also a huge green house gas contributor.
There is zero reason whatsoever to create new coal burning plants. Use that same money to offer then nuclear power plants. It would cost less lives and create technical jobs as opposed to creating mining jobs.
Switching gears back to planet earth which scenario do you think is a better situation?
Bank allows loan on condition proven cost effective measures to scrub out most non-CO2 pollutants including mercury.
Bank denies loan only for it to be granted by someone else who would impose no environmental restrictions of any kind?
Which is best for the environment?
The "developed" world has a duty to provide leadership and develop practical cost effective solutions. Thus far it has utterly totally failed.
The developed world is not obligated to help the undeveloped world.
Does the developed world have an obligation to help China and India? Because the funding restriction combined with voluntary mitigation on the part of the developed world is very advantageous to those two countries.
I suppose there is no obligation for the developed world to act in a suicidal and widely destructive way. It's just what they do.
The market cares nothing for your failed ideology or it's reliance on 18th Century fuel sources.
Adapt.
Or dye.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You loan people X, they pay you back X plus interest. If the "plus interest" part is more than you could make putting your money to other uses (and the risk/reward calculus is acceptable), you make the loan. That it is international is a minor consideration - it gets factored in as an increase in the risk that you won't get paid back.
The government subsidizes loans to third world countries as a form of aid. Removal of the subsidy will not stop the loans. GE, for example, started as a manufacturer, but became a bank because they started loaning money to their customers to buy their products. The commercial loan business outgrew the manufacturing arm.
So, stopping the loans may hurt the US more than it helps, in strictly financial terms. We aren't building power plants at the rate the developing world is. If you want that business, you need to be prepared make deals that include financing.
Ah, you think that has nothing to do with being exploited and robbed bare for centuries?
What correlation do you see between being "exploited and robbed bare" and modern success? Why do some countries get out of it and move on, and other countries wallow in it? I mean clearly that happens, and clearly there's more than one reason, so I don't see why you would focus on some historical period of oppression.
Conversely, this history of looting and pillaging is a large factor in why the currently wealthy countries became, well, wealthy.
How are the Vikings doing today, compared to the cultures they looted and pillaged? Is there still a Viking homeland? How are the Mongols doing? One does not simply loot and pillage as the basis for an economy.
The only way to get wealthy is sweat equity in your country. You build nice shit. You make successful companies. You have brilliant ideas. That's how most of the currently wealthy countries became wealthy, not looting and pillaging! For example, what did America loot and pillage? If it was so trivial for America to become wealthy by looting and pillaging the Native Americans, why didn't the Native Americans loot and pillage each other first and end up with the same wealth?
I strongly suspect that you're calling things looting and pillaging that are not in fact looting and pillaging, but hard work, brilliance, and to some extent luck.
Of course it is more complicated, but GP was being a bit of a douche and I had little time to reply. The Vikings are doing pretty well, actually. Scandinavian nations rank high in most indices.
Clearly there are counter examples, but I don't think you can deny that having the huge material advantage from the bad old days is a major factor in how current wealth distribution came about.
This would not have been possible without hard work, to be sure, but I think would have been likewise impossible without this head start.
Native Americans tribes, or at least that's my impression, were not above pillaging and looting each other. But with different ideas of wealth and property from the European settlers (and each other probably). More to the point though, by that time it didn't really matter what they had aspired to beforehand.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
but I'm sure that the US will gladly sell you some coal to burn if you get a plant built.
Historical advantage from pillaging just doesn't last. If it did, Spain would be a world leader from its 16th century activities in the Americas. For a more modern example, compare Hong Kong to any other major city in China. Or Japan after being destroyed in WWII.
Wealth comes from production, and production occurs when producers believe the results of their production won't be stolen from them.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So you don't think cars and trains are better than mules?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Were most people in Scandinavia Vikings back then? I thought it was a pretty small subset of the population. Anyway they never gained enough wealth from looting to become rich, even back then -- which is why they were doing the looting, not the other way around. Looting is a poor man's occupation for the most part, unless it's the brief looting done during war.
The end of the Viking age occurred when the people they were raiding eclipsed them militarily and economically, plus the Vikings "found religion". I suspect that coming into the fold of Christianity, establishing normal trade, getting investment and wealth from the Church, etc, ended up generating a lot more long-term wealth than their raiding had done. Nothing is left of the Vikings except maybe some old jewelry or swords in a museum, maybe some boats that are preserved. The non-Viking fishermen and farmers who lived and worked built towns that are still around to this day with a functioning economy. That's lasting wealth in my opinion.