On 6th April, the World Bank took a step that underlines how the developing world’s determination to achieve rapid economic growth makes a mockery of the West’s loudly proclaimed intention to “save the planet” by reducing CO2 emissions. In doing so, it was helped by the British government.
What happened was that the Bank approved a $3.75 billion loan to build one of the world’s largest coal fired power plants in South Africa – it will, for example, be far larger than Drax, the biggest coal-fired power station in the UK. The new plant, a 4,800 megawatt plant estimated to emit 25 million tonnes of CO2 per annum means that South Africa is now most unlikely to meet its promise to curb future greenhouse gas emissions. That is significant enough – but the main importance of this rests with the circumstances of its happening and especially with what it tells us about global political realities.
Inadequate electricity supply is a serious and worsening obstacle to South Africa’s economic development and political stability. The South African government says the plant is essential if millions of very poor people in southern Africa (the plant will provide energy beyond South Africa itself) are to get the energy security and basic services the developed world takes for granted – water supplies, health care, education, food preservation etc. all depend on the reliable supply of electricity. Obiageli Ezekwesili, the World Bank’s vice president for Africa said, “Without an increased energy supply, South Africans will face hardship for the poor and limited economic growth. Access to energy is essential for fighting poverty and catalyzing growth, both in South Africa and the wider sub-region.”
The project will use similar technology to a huge (described as “Ultra Mega”) coal-fired plant in India (one of six planned) already supported by the World Bank and the UK; absurdly, this project is also eligible for huge payments from the West under Kyoto’s carbon trading scheme. When that loan was announced, Tom Picken of Friends of the Earth said, “This plant exposes how the World Bank’s attempt to get involved in combating climate change is nothing but a farce”.
It’s no surprise, therefore, that environmental activists saw the South African proposal as a precedent too far. Christian Aid adviser, Eliot Whittington, said “This is a massive amount of international public finance going to the dirtiest form of energy in a highly unequal society without strong indications that it will have any positive impact on energy access for the poorest”. Therefore, with the USA already committed to abstention and the UK (because of its voting strength in the World Bank) with the casting vote, activist groups – notably Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Christian Aid – mounted a major campaign for the UK to block the proposal with a clear “No”.
But, in the event, Britain also abstained. This allowed the proposal to proceed with the consensus support of countries whose growth is massively dependent on coal, especially India, China and Brazil – together with South Africa itself. Environmentalists feel badly let down by the UK. After all, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is clear: noting that climate change is “a massive threat to the global environment [demanding] … an urgent and radical response across the developed and developing world”, its website states that the first of its “Strategic Objectives” is to “Secure global commitments which prevent dangerous climate change”. How can this possibly be reconciled with the UK’s decision on the South African loan?
Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser for Greenpeace said, “Britain could have stopped the loan if it had wanted to but it took the easy way out”.
In fact, Britain now seems likely to have achieved the worst of all outcomes. In sharp contrast to the above, its failure to support the proposal could damage its relations with a developing world which may well see it as further evidence of the patronising and comfortable West’s reluctance to support their economic development – and the wellbeing of millions of the world’s poorest people. It could jeopardise the Mexico climate summit later this year.
But, in my view, Roger Pielke Jr. has identified the real significance of this story:
“When GDP growth comes into conflict with emissions reduction goals, it is not going to be growth that is scaled back. Further, when rich countries wanting emissions reductions run into poorer countries wanting energy, it is not going to be rich countries who get their way. When energy access depends upon cheap energy, arguments to increase energy costs or deny energy access are not going to be very compelling. The South African coal plant decision well illustrates many of the political boundary conditions that shape climate policy. Policy design will have to accommodate these conditions, rather than ignore them or think that they will somehow go away”.
In other words, we in the West may be prepared to wreck our economies with “green” policies, but the developing world – rapidly increasing its CO2 emissions – is not going to follow suit.
Invitation: Online debate on India-Brazil- South Africa (IBSA) Policy Dialogue Forum
In partnership with the Ideas for Development blog, the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG) is launching an online debate that will contribute with inputs for the forthcoming IBSA Academic Forum, which will be hosted by IPC-IG on 12-13 April in Brasilia, Brazil.
We invite you to participate in this discussion and reflect about the following issues:
– What is the role of the emerging countries in shaping world politics?
– How can India, Brazil and South Africa strengthen cooperation in key issues on the global agenda?
– In which ways an improved policy dialogue among developing countries can contribute to the implementation of effective policies towards the achievement of inclusive growth and human development?
Join us at: http://www.ideas4development.org
We also invite you to visit the IBSA Academic Forum website, where you can find interesting papers, resources and breaking news. Visit: http://www.ipc-undp.org/ibsa
A good reality check, Robin, illustrating nicely how western governments are only really interested in green policies when it suits them. It would be interesting to hear the Milibands talk their way out of this one…
Are you guys lining up behind Greenpeace now?
Consider what could be done with, say, $37500 in southern Africa. The life of a poor person who would otherwise die due to malnutrition, disease, etc. could be saved and made vastly better. In fact, $37500 is an overestimate for the money needed to do such.
Almost everyone agrees that southern Africa needs the energy provided by the new plant. What eco-activists were advocating was to use “sustainable” energy sources instead of coal, e.g. wind, sun, etc. The sustainable sources are apparently estimated to cost roughly double what coal costs, i.e. an extra $3.75 billion.
$3.75 billion = $37500 × 100000. In other words, the money that would have been required to use sustainable sources is large enough to save and vastly better the lives of 100000 people. In other words, the eco-activists were effectively advocating allowing 100000 people to die. And because $37500 is an overestimate, the actual number of people is greater.
Robin
Good analysis.
It certainly points out that the developing countries will inevitably do what is best for their own conditions, rather than worry about the “rich man’s virtual problem”.
Thinking that we can force these nations to limit the supply of their energy needs to high-cost renewables is a pipe dream. And, as Douglas J. Keenan points out, it would be disastrous for the poorest individuals on this planet.
Using local resources (coal reserves) to develop a low-cost basic energy infrastructure will be the direction taken not only in BRIC + South Africa, but eventually in most of the currently underdeveloped nations.
We cannot stop this and we certainly will not perish as a result.
I am curious how PeterM will respond to your basic question (if at all).
Max
The weird aspect is that if this new power station was going to built in the UK then one of the Milibands would veto it.
But his brother had the chance to veto the power station in SA and he didn’t.
This only makes sense when you realise there is a hierarchy in the pantheon of trendy causes. Poverty in Africa trumps Dangerous Worldwide Climate Change.
No doubt Robin will respond to comments here in due course. At the moment I understand that he is away from his computer.
Jack Hughes wrote:
Yes, it does (and rightly so).
The billions that are spent for one “trendy cause” are by definition not available to address the other.
The impoverished nations in Africa need a low-cost energy infrastructure, based on local fossil fuel reserves if at all possible, in order to pull themselves out of poverty and into affluence (just as the industrially developed nations did in the 19th and 20th centuries and the developing BRIC nations are doing today).
Coal is still by far the cheapest and most abundant fossil fuel around. Nuclear is too dicey, especially for politically unstable regions, and besides it is more expensive. Hydroelectric power is limited to those few nations that have this possibility. Other renewables such as wind or solar are just not able to provide a low-cost reliable energy infrastructure.
An energy infrastructure would eliminate the need to use firewood for indoor cooking and heating, which is estimated by WHO to result in around 2 million deaths annually. It would also permit the installation of water treating and distribution systems in order to provide clean drinking water, again eliminating the deaths of another 2 million people annually, as estimated by WHO.
The leaders of some of these impoverished nations might jump at he idea of accepting a “guilt tax” from the developed countries (even if it were tied to committing to “green” energy solutions), but this is not the answer that is in the best interest of the populations of these countries.
The AGW fixation is a rich man’s folly, at least partly driven by an underlying guilt feeling for the affluence enjoyed by the industrialized, and therefore rich, man. It will achieve nothing positive, other than possibly inducing improved energy efficiency and reducing energy dependence on foreign oil. By forcing non-viable “green” pie-in-the-sky solutions on the poor nations, it will ensure that they remain in abject poverty.
The desire to help poor African nations develop a viable energy infrastructure may also be driven partly by guilt feelings combined with remorse for having colonized these people and “exploited” their resources in past centuries. However, it will enable the poorest nations to pull themselves out of the abject poverty in which they are now stuck, and is therefore a good thing.
So helping to reduce poverty in Africa should trump worrying about the virtual problem of AGW.
Max
Its curious how all you right wing types are now shedding crocodile tears for the plight of Africa. You’ll be telling us next of your exploits in the SA anti-apartheid struggle! Where were you then?
But let me get this straight about what you are saying:
African poverty is a big problem. Yes, we should help them out but only if the money comes out of what has been earmarked to combat global warming? But, not if its been diverted from military expenditure? And, when its established that AGW is a “dead duck” all this silly talk of African aid can be quietly forgotten?
And on the scientific level: The world is just too addicted to the drug of dirty energy, so there is no hope of humanity ever getting clean. So let’s just pretend that the so-called experts have it all wrong. What’s the point of worrying about it anyway?
An incisive article by Robin and some good comments here. Just a quick observation before I have to dash to work. If this new mega power station does go ahead, and others like it are built in India and elsewhere, and if Bonn and Cancun yield no global agreement this year, then it seems likely to me that the die is cast; man-made CO2 emissions will keep on rising.
That being so, I would expect a change of emphasis among those who hold that man-made greenhouse gases are likely to drive catastrophic climate change – away from from CO2 reduction and towards infrastructure strengthening (in anticipation of the coming “climate chaos”) – better sea defences, irrigation/desalination systems where drought threatens, more efficient measures to protect populations from tropical storms, heat waves, cold snaps and wildfires.
If so, I think it possible that there may be common ground between AGW adherents and AGW sceptics, as we would probably agree on many of these measures anyway. A reason to be optimistic?
PeterM
Pop an anti-anxiety pill. You seem to be getting carried away again.
Not being a “right-winger”, I’ll still respond to your silly outburst (9).
African poverty (and its other face: corruption) is a major problem for the entire world, Peter, in case you have not been reading newspapers for the past 20 years or so. African refugees are streaming into Europe: these are fleeing from corruption and despair (not from the results of AGW, as some confused souls have been led to believe).
The billions that have been pumped into sub-Saharan Africa by the developed nations have largely gone to the wrong places.
Instead of helping these nations pull themselves up like we did in the 19th and 20th centuries, by building a carbon-based energy infrastructure, the money has gone into a futile attempt to directly stem starvation and disease, with a lot being siphoned off by corrupt government officials.
Peter, it is not a matter of money being “earmarked” for Africa or for AGW. It is a fact that there is a finite supply of funding for all causes. If a myopic fixation on AGW gobbles up billions of taxpayer dollars to crank out a 3,000 page pseudo-scientific political sales pitch like AR4, that’s money that could have been better spent for something more humanitarian and, therefore, more worthwhile.
For some good background reading, I can recommend David S. Landes’ The Wealth and Poverty of Nations – Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. Landes explains not only why and how the industrialized nations became affluent while other regions did not, he provides lessons in how to relieve much of the world’s poverty of today.
Open your eyes, Peter. There’s more to be concerned about out there than a few tenths of a degree warming possibly partly caused by human CO2 emissions.
Max
Alex Cull
Your #10 reveals that you are a man of reason and logic.
The demise of the “AGW mitigation phase” should reasonably and logically open the start of the “AGW adaptation phase”.
But what if “AGW mitigation” was simply a ruse for introducing massive (direct or indirect) carbon taxes, to be paid principally by the taxpayers of the affluent nations and to be distributed at will by the very politicians who have tried their hardest to levy them in the first place?
And then there are those (like PeterM) who feel that it is our moral imperative to break our “addiction to the drug of dirty energy”.
Even if the latter categories represent only a portion of the “AGW mitigation” crowd, it would appear to me that this segment will not see “AGW adaptation” as a logical sequel to “AGW mitigation”.
But maybe I am a pessimist, and reason and logic will prevail.
Max
I wonder if this analogy will help us to think clearly:
Let’s pretend that today’s noise will echo round the world and cause all kinds of trouble in 40 years time. The only way to avert this trouble is to be really quiet. Everyone has to be quiet.
Q1) Would we let poor people make more noise – because they were poor? Remember that all sound will cause trouble.
Q2) If you had a noisy grandpa and a noisy dad would you have a special duty on top of people with quieter ancestors?
Q3) Would it be OK to go round with a megaphone yelling at people to be quiet?
Nuclear is cheaper than coal though we don’t know exactly how much cheaper because most of the cost is regulatory. I am a little surprised SA didn’t go for nuclear as, for example, Yemen has. If the leaders of the developed world really believed in CO2 caused catastrophic warming rather than it being an excuse to enforce Luddite Fascism they would be encouraging mass production of turnkey nuclear plants, which would certainly make them cheaper yet. The reaction to nuclear is a touchstone of the integrity of any warming believer.
Those of us determined to get excited about the minutiae of the AGW hypothesis would do well to look around occasionally and take note of the real world. This World Bank decision is a perfect example of that. And it’s simple enough: the developing economies – China, India, Brazil etc. (i.e. the economies that, unlike the developed West, are still booming) – don’t give a damn about our debate. Whatever we think, whatever we do, they are determined to continue their economic progress and, if that means burning increasing amounts of CO2 emitting coal (which it commonly does), so be it. Moreover, even Western governments – despite their “climate change” rhetoric – when faced with the hard reality of not wishing to oppose that determination, back down. Thus the British government, that could well have voted “No” on this occasion, hesitated and abstained, thereby allowing the project to proceed – in effect, it voted “Yes”. So even we don’t live up to our own protestations when we are put to the test. Whatever actions we take to limit our own emissions and weaken our own economies, whatever the climate pundits and the increasingly absurd IPCC may say, the world isn’t interested and really we know it. We’d do well to get used to and to take account of that harsh, inconvenient and uncomfortable reality in determining our own policies. But I don’t suppose we will.
Neil Craig
You wrote:
I think the answer lies here:
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf
According to this report, South Africa has 35 billions tons of coal reserves; Yemen has no coal.
South Africa is a major exporter of coal today and was one of the first nations to convert coal to liquid fuels and petrochemicals (SASOL process), during the “apartheid” period when many nations refused to sell petroleum products to South Africa.
Max
Robin
The reality is that China, India and Russia (plus the USA) have huge coal reserves, with Australia and South Africa not far behind. Brazil only has small reserves, but has major oil deposits (and can grow sugar cane for ethanol production as a motor fuel economically). Russia also has major petroleum and natural gas reserves, as do the USA.
It is foolish to believe that China and India will not exploit their coal reserves as they develop economically and raise the standard of living of their populations. The same goes for Russia.
Under their current governments, the USA and Australia may hesitate to do so (in oder to “save the planet”), but it is my guess that it is only a matter of time until common sense will again prevail in both countries and new coal-fired power plants will be constructed.
Max
Max:
Australia may be hesitating to use its coal itself but I believe it exports a lot to China – no doubt PeterM can enlighten us about that. As you say, China and India will “exploit their coal reserves as they develop economically and raise the standard of living of their populations”. As many millions of the world’s poorest people live in those countries, we should rejoice at the real hope that brings them. That’s why I thought it a shameful betrayal that Christian Aid (a charity I have supported for years) should have opposed the World Bank loan.
Robin
You are right. China does, indeed import a lot of coal from Australia, roughly 25 million tons annually.
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-exports_coal-export-details.aspx
Japan is by far the largest importer of Australian coal, followed by South Korea and Taiwan. Then comes China, followed by India.
Coal exports from Australia totaled 260 million tons in 2009.
PM Rudd may “feel good” that he is “helping to save the planet” by holding Australia’s total CO2 emissions at around 400 million tons of CO2 per year, although it appears that his climate policy is not too popular among Australians (I’m sure Peter can tell us more about this)..
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/16/Australia_PM_Rudds_popularity_hits_new_low_poll/
But the 260 million tons of exported coal generate another 900 million tons of CO2 per year, which Rudd’s “feel good” commitment on CO2 does not include.
Oops!
Max
I noted @18 that millions of the world’s poorest people live in countries that are investing massively in coal fired energy and that we should rejoice at the real hope that brings them. I thought it a shameful betrayal that Christian Aid (a charity I have supported for years) should have opposed such investment in South Africa. I note this morning that Oxfam in advertising for a “Senior Press Officer – Climate Change” says “Campaigning for action on climate change is Oxfam’s key priority“. So another charity I have supported for years sees action that will deny to many of the world’s poorest and most desperate people benefits that the West takes for granted as its “top priority”.
How many babies must die because comfortable Western middle class people have a quasi religious belief in an unverified hypothesis?