Marching on hot coals

By Niranjali M. Amerasinghe

Niranjali M. Amerasinghe, Staff Attorney

On March 1, 2011, activists will hold rallies in cities around the world to mark a Day of Action, calling on the World Bank to phase out lending for fossil fuel generated power. For those who can’t attend in person, there will be virtual actions on the same day, which is very exciting!

Most often, the justification provided by the World Bank and other international financial institutions for continuing to support fossil fuel generated power is that it brings much-needed electricity to the poor. Or that it’s cheap, efficient, and is just the first part of a longer-term low carbon plan to address energy shortages. But coal plants are rarely short-term; they tend to have life spans of decades. They are also not low carbon or environmentally friendly. Indeed, from a social and environmental perspective, coal plants are a nightmare: air pollution from coal plants can cause severe respiratory illness in nearby communities; coal ash and other byproducts can contaminate groundwater, and can thereby cause illness and water shortages in affected communities; the pollution and contamination can affect surrounding flora and fauna… the list goes on. And if you translate these harms into costs (because the costs are both real and significant, see the new Harvard study that calculates costs of coal in the US ) the idea that coal is cheap or efficient is more myth than fact. Besides, big centralized fossil fuel generated power is not the only way to get electricity to the poor.

Don’t get me wrong, energy shortages are a serious issue. When I was a teenager, in the late nineties, there were massive energy shortages in Sri Lanka, a little place I like to call home. I still remember having to study by candlelight for many months because of coordinated power cuts. The country was in bad shape. But, the situation was worsened because our primary energy source was water, and at the time we were facing severe drought. For millions of Sri Lankans, it spelled near disaster. Not only was there inadequate electricity to maintain most sectors of the economy, but over time there was not even enough water for people to live on.

Now, this is a good example of the problems with large-scale hydro power (which is best left for another day), but it also speaks to a broader lesson. And that is that we must learn to address energy issues in a sustainable way, in a way that minimizes social and environmental harms. As a general matter, in the World Bank, there are safeguard policies that require environmental and social impact assessments before projects are approved. There are even requirements for a cost-benefit analysis of each project that must consider environmental and social costs (what economists like to call externalities). In the grand scheme of things, these policies alone may not be enough – particularly as they are being applied now. The current efforts to develop an energy strategy for the World Bank would be a good place to tackle these issues head on, and in particular find ways of providing energy access to the world’s poor in a way that minimizes social and environmental harm. But even relying on existing policies, it is hard to imagine that fossil fuels, in particular coal plants, could legitimately be anything but a very narrow part of the World Bank lending portfolio.

  1. Erika
    March 9, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Well stated Nira. I thought this post did an excellent job of explaining the need for there to be a day of action and pressure on the World Bank to reconsider the role it will have in funding coal projects now and in the future. While few would argue against funding projects that provide energy access to the poor, you rightly identified that providing what is seen as cheap is not always the best nor really cheap. As you have so eloquently stated, energy shortages are a problem, but addressing that problem does not need to be done by creating future problems and jeopardizing the health of the people. I completely agree that the focus needs to be on promoting energy that is sustainable and that minimizes environmental and social harm. It can hardly be said that the best way to help ensure that everyone, including the poor, have energy is by building coal plants that will have health and environmental defects for years to come. When deciding on how best to ensure energy access for all, we need to consider the future and the goal of ensuring that future generations not only have energy, but have a place where they can live a healthy life. This post identifies the pitfalls of continuing to fund coal projects rather than focusing on sustainable energy and minimizing social and environmental harm. I only hope that those in charge of drafting the energy strategy at the World Bank listen.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: