World Bank must do more on fossil fuels

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/world-bank-must-do-more-on-fossil-fuels

Version 0 of 1.

It is extremely encouraging that World Bank president Jim Yong Kim is leading calls for an end to fossil fuel subsidies worldwide (End subsidy on fossil fuels now, 14 April). The World Bank has raised concerns about the impacts of climate change on the world’s poorest people for a number of years, but this is the first time that it has directly called for an end to government support for fossil fuels, and recognised that clean energy technology can be effective in supporting people out of poverty. The message this sends to global investors is clear.

It is now time for the World Bank to pull its own financing out of fossil fuels. In 2013, it financed $2.7bn for fossil fuel projects, which included over $1bn for new fossil fuel exploration. By ending its own subsidies to fossil fuels, the World Bank would not just send a message, but generate a shockwave that could make a real transformation towards ending global fossil fuel dependency.Alison DoigSenior adviser for climate change and sustainable development, Christian Aid

• Regarding Jim Yong Kim’s call for more hydroelectric power in Africa, over the past few decades the construction of large dams and reservoirs in Africa has caused misery for the poor: lack of compensation for resettlement, loss of water and fishing rights, ecological and health problems, soil erosion and more. The only way forward in the rural areas is small community-run projects that combine micro-hydro with bottom-up interdisciplinary development projects such as terracing, agro-forestry, subsurface dams, health education, sanitation and water supply. The Katine project was a good example.Eddie JamesRillington, North Yorkshire

• The figure for fossil fuel subsidies of $1tn given by the World bank includes approximately $500bn in direct subsidies from selling petrol at below cost, and another $500bn in tax breaks, which include VAT exemption for airline fuel and, in the UK, tax incentives for fracking companies. It does not include the health and environmental costs to society of carbon emissions. In 2013, the IMF used a figure of $25 per tonne of CO2, which adds $800bn to the estimate, but this is almost certainly an underestimate, as most commentators put the price at $50 or higher. In either event the world community is shelling out $2tn annually to promote an activity likely to end human civilisation as we know it. By contrast, renewable energy receives just $80bn in global subsidies, or $1 for every $25 spent on fossil fuels.Dr Robin Russell-JonesStoke Poges, Buckinghamshire