Follow this blog:
RSS

World Bank boss urges coal for poor countries

By | January 28, 2013, 5:07 AM PST

"Tough negotiation." Jim Yong Kim wants to reduce world poverty while also tackling man-made climate change.

World Bank president Jim Yong Kim is a vocal advocate of fighting man- made climate change. Two months ago he said he wanted to “shock” the world into aggressive action to halt “devastating” human consequences of failing to curtail carbon energy sources.

So some people might have considered it a little shocking over the weekend when, at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, he promoted the use of coal as a cheap energy source in poor countries. The World Bank’s mission is to reduce global poverty.

“We want to do everything we can to lower the use of coal,” Kim said, as reported by the BBC. “But we can’t turn our backs when poor countries need coal. My first priority is for countries to have the energy they need to lift their own people out of poverty. It’s a tough negotiation.”

That doesn’t mean he’s softening his views on climate change.

Two months ago, in the World Bank’s Turn Down The Heat report, Kim warned that the planet’s current trend of warming 4 degrees C by the end of the century would lead to “the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, espcially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarity in many regions; increased frequency of high-intenstiy tropical cyclones; and irrversible loss of biodiveristy, including coral reef systems.”

In releasing the report, he said, “It is my hope that this report shocks us into action. Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to work with much more urgency.”

The BBC story notes that he repeated those warnings at Davos.

“I feel like I have to tackle this issue as a matter of conscience. [Climate change] is real,” he said. ”We have to keep up a steady drumbeat in between the extreme weather events. I think our role at the bank is to continue to inform the [public of the] impact [of climate change].”

In a video interview with Bloomberg from the Swiss ski resort, he notes that “in the worst climate scenario, my kids will live in a world without coral reefs, with acid oceans and with wars fought over water” - a statement that leads WEF’s own choice of top 10 quotes from its 2013 conference.

Not everyone agrees that coal is a crucial energy diet to help develop poor nations. Renewables group the Desertec Foundation recently criticized the $12 billion that it says the World Bank has invested in fossil fuels over the last six years in poor countries.

“Had this $12 billion been invested in harnessing renewable energy in the sites where the wind blows the hardest or the sun shines the fiercest such as, for example, the deserts of Asia, the Americas and Africa, our mitigation efforts would already have taken a big step forward,” Desertec director Thiemo Gropp said.

Want more Dr. Kim? Here’s an hour of him last October in a video from the Wall Street Journal via YouTube:

Top photo is a screen grab from Wall Street Journal October video interview of Jim Yong Kim, via YouTube.

More world banking on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
22
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Lazy copy and paste news editors and climate blame:
Reefer Madness!

Climate change believers and their condemning of our children to their greenhouse gas ovens of their climate change hell on earth should legally be held accountable for their war crime of 27 years of needless CO2 panic.
Posted by mememine69
28th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
That's kinda funny...
...because the warm-mongers believe the same thing:

James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity.

Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/308598/doubting_global_warming_could_be_treason.html?cat=75

Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm

Canadien pop-scientist David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore
climate science to be jailed: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

DeSmogBlogs James Hoggan wants skeptics treated
as war criminals: http://vodpod.com/watch/2597161-james-hoggan-should-climate-deniers-be-treated-like-war-criminals

Environmental magazine "Grist" called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics: http://newsbusters.org/node/8249

Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1174/Update-Romm-defends-remarks-as-not-a-threat-but-a-prediction--Strangle-Skeptics-in-Bed-An-entire-generation-will-soon-be-ready-to-strangle-you-and-your-kind-while-you-sleep-in-your-beds

A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute
climate deniers: http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/06/at_what_point_do_we_jail_or_ex.php

Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.

Senator Bernie Sanders compared climate skeptics to Nazi appeasers: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33371.html

Greenpeace threatened unspecified reprisals against unbelievers, saying: "If youre one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few."
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
28th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Just who are the crazy people.
Global warming proponents, cheerleaders and profiteers alike, like to call people who question the science crazy deniers. We are insane people who refuse to see their truth. We are unwilling to convert to their beliefs.

Yet who are the ones calling for jailing people who waste money on questionable science? A reasonable request considering how much finacial fraud has been associated with the global warming movement.

And who are the ones calling for the execution of people who question the science for high crimes against humanity?

Calling for the death of people just because they do not believe.

Sounds like a cult to me. Just a little too crazy for me. Thanks, but no.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 28th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
Oh please.
HI sez:

"Yet who are the ones calling for jailing people who waste money on questionable science? A reasonable request considering how much finacial fraud has been associated with the global warming movement."

While there may be some fraud associated with certain market mechanisms set up to for carbon markets I challenge you to prove any serious fraud in the conduct of climate science. So far most of the stuff they are saying will happen is happening and there is no reason to think it won't continue to happen.

I don't call for the jailing of anyone over this but I believe karma will catch up with many who have lead the charge against climate science.
Posted by riverat1
30th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
East Anglia.
If not for friends in the UK Parliament the lot of them would have been in jail for the fraudulent use of government funds to run their little cabal.

Since climate gate there has been a steady flow of revelations of questionable climate data that has caused honest climate scientists to call for better standards of data management.

These guys scratched the surface of the problem in their attempt to protect their collegues, and indeed their jobs, while acknowledging the existence of a problem in the science community.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56466/description/Climate_science_Credibility_at_risk_scientists_say

Recommended data standards for the tracking of monitoring climate change data existed at least as far back as 2003. Standards that East Englia ignored and failed to meet while claiming to be a legitamate clearing house for climate data.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/ccspstratplan2003-chap13.htm

Here is just a small example of what the main stream media likes to hide when it comes to data integrity problems.

August 2012: NOAA states that for July 1936, the 48 contiguous states average monthly temperature is 77.4F and was the previous record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/2012/7

Today: NOAA states that for July 1936, the 48 contiguous states average monthly temperature is 76.41F and is now 3rd warmest.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip

Sometime in just 5 months, NOAA adjusted July 1936 downwards by 1F. Why? I wonder what July 1936 is going to next year? I wonder what other temperatures 70-80 years ago were also manipulated downwards?

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/20562887/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data

Why are they going back and adjusting temperature data that was collected properly back in 1936? There is no reason to ADJUST it because it was collected according to the long set standard.

Why alter quality data unless they wished to make it appear todays temperatures are UNPRESIDENTED. That is a word thrown around very often in the global warming community that is more often than not proven wrong.

After being proven wrong many times with their UNPRESIDENTED statements and after being caught manipulating current data to look warmer they had 1 option left. Change history.

Now they are going back and altering the historical data to make todays data look hotter than it is. Unless people locate pre manipulation copies of the data, the problem will go largely ingnored by the average public. All to make todays temperatures look UNPRESIDENTED.

From a pure science standpoint point it all goes back to the fact they would not need to do any DATA MANIPULATION if they went back to proven standards of collecting accurate temperature data in the first place.

Relocating over 1,000 automated weather stations in the US that are well out of standard would be a good start to having true data integrity.

So if my tax dollars are being used to commit fraud. I want people in jail. What is the problem with that?

Besides, I do not want them dead. Like other people want me. Solely because I am not a believer in Global Warming.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 31st Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
No fraud there, try again.
You apparently are automatically assuming NCDC made the changes for nefarious reasons. A little research reveals that they updated the GHCN-M software from V3.1.0 to V3.2.0. That apparently corrected a long running error in the Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm after it was discovered as a part of Google's "Summer of Code" project.

So all reported temperatures were adjusted. For your example, yes the reported average temperature for July 1936 went from 77.4F to 76.41F but you failed to note that the reported average temperature for July 2012 also went from 77.6F to 76.92F, a similar drop in temperature. The note at the top of this page explains the change:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

That page includes several links to details of the change including this PDF FAQ:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf

The PDF talks about how the software change affects the reported temperatures.

As far as I can tell they updated the software for good and valid reasons. As they point out no changes were made to the unadjusted raw data.

Your Science News link says the problems in climate science has more to do with PR than it does with any real problems with the science. Yes they guys at East Anglia could have been more open with their data and methods but no one has found their science to be purposely distorted. I guess from your POV it's all just a big coverup. But their findings pretty much agree with the findings of others around the world. I just don't believe that a conspiracy to distort science is possible on that scale. You'd have to go back to Arrhenius's 1896 paper that stated "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." (If you don't know carbonic acid was what they called CO2 back then.) That's a pretty long running conspiracy.
Posted by riverat1
31st Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Penn State also cleared Mann...
...but then again, his science was never questioned simply because he's been so good at getting grants, that it's just assumed to be "good".

Makes sense. They never took the Sandusky scandal seriously either, since football raised even more money than Mann did.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
31st Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
Despicable!
That's pretty despicable trying to connect Michael Mann to the Sandusky scandal.

Mann has been investigated by more than Penn State.
Posted by riverat1
1st Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
Why is that "despicable"?
If a president of a university is willing to turn a blind eye to one of his coaches poking little boys in the showers in order to not upset a a highly popular and lucrative football program, it's hardly a stretch to believe that the same administration would turn the same blind eye to one of their star researchers and grant-getters pulling in the global warming gravy train.

Such is what they expose themselves to when they allow their professional and ethical standards to lapse, as much of the "climate science" community has done. If they had been above board (which apparently they are incapable of doing in order to remain politically viable) then such comparisons would not be possible.

They did it to themselves.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 1st Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Still despicable!
The investigation of Michael Mann at Penn State was conducted by his academic peers, not the administrators.

http://www.research.psu.edu/news/2010/michael-mann-decision

Mann has been the target of climate change deniers since his original hockey stick graph came out in 1998 even though other studies that came after have supported its conclusions. He has been investigated for scientific fraud several times including by the National Science Foundation and the AG of Virginia and nothing has ever come of any of them. It's one thing to accuse him of scientific fraud but to try and smear Mann's name by associating him with Jerry Sandusky is truly despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself!

I would say more but it would probably get my post censored by SP.
Posted by riverat1
1st Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
No, this is despicable.
Directly quoted by the links you provided above:

"This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research."

So basically, since he's so successful at getting funded, his science must be good and above reproach. So there's no need to question it or investigate further. He's bringing in the cash, and that's good enough for us.

Not only is it all about the money, they even admit it!

Wow, kinda sounds like the SEC when they ignored all the obvious signs that Bernie Madoff wasn't what he said he was.

Despicable indeed.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 2nd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Any major research university would say the same.
I challenge to find any major research university that would not say the same thing about its leading academic personnel. If you think Penn State would countenance keeping anyone guilty of academic fraud on their payroll and jeopardize their reputation and all the rest of the funding for other research you have an unrealistic belief about academia. Mann's funding probably amounts to less than 1% of the funding that PS researchers bring in.

Again, to equate Mann with the child molestation of Sandusky demonstrates a warped sense of morality to me and is despicable in my mind.
Posted by riverat1
5th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Seriously?
Could you imagine the ridicule the Petroleum Institute would receive if they issued a report on any investigation on the integrity of their research that suggested that money had no impact on outcome?

The longer you stick with this "money doesn't corrupt" meme, the funnier it gets.

And I wasn't comparing Mann with child molestation, and you should be smart enough to figure that out. What I am doing is questioning the integrity of an organization that tolerated it, which is the same that exonerated Mann.

Again, it clearly states that they money keeps pouring in, so all must be okay. Quite frankly, I haven't seen such a damning open admission of academic fraud since the Climategate e-mails.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 6th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Whatever
Mann is so well known that if there was any serious question of his scientific integrity it would be known by now. As it is the only people who have ever accused him of fraud are people who don't like the implications of his work.

I think you just see it the way you do because you are one of those who doesn't like the implications same as you think the climategate emails are an open admission of academic fraud. I got a good laugh out of that too.
Posted by riverat1
6th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Argumentum ad populum...
...is not considered a "proof" in "science". At least it didn't used to be.

But it certainly is in "politics" and "marketing" which is what much of your climate cohort is really participating in.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 7th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
As usual.
China is considered among the "poor" nations who need to be allowed to use coal.

This is why global warming proponents like him make the entire topic a joke with their constant hypocrisy.
Posted by Hates Idiots
28th Jan
-2 Votes
+ -
Looks like...
To me, it looks like the energy baron conspiracy of the world managed to get to him, through some sort of either blackmail or bribery. That's the way that they work in order to maintain their grip on the global economy.
Posted by omb00900@...
28th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Coal vs. "renewables"
Coal is going to be necessary to provide baseload power generation for developing economies. The tiny and intermittent power from wind and solar can't be relied on to meet the exploding energy demand from air conditioning, electric lighting, and the other features of American prosperity. Since chemical capture and underground storage of CO2 at utility scale is not feasible (and would endanger the groundwater) coal emissions in developing countries will more than offset energy efficiencies in the US.

So post-combustion non-chemical, non-membrane CO2 capture from flue gas, and safe ultimate disposal of captured CO2, need to be developed and deployed at these new coal plants. Wind and solar may play a small part, but for them to insist on a starring role -- despite their well-known disqualifications -- is producing needless squabbling and diversion of resources from the main task.
Posted by Wilmot McCutchen
28th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
one way out
disttrict generated solar, severly increased efficiencies and thoreum reactors are the only way out of this mess we have created while ensuring a long term supply of non destructive energy.
www.orionsolartech.com
My contribution to the solution
Posted by Gary McCallum
28th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
The so-called World Bank is in the business
... of "helping" developing nations by forcing them to sell their resources to mostly US-based corporations.
Posted by radleym
29th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
My problem has always been the definition of developing nation.
How is it that China is among the oldest countries on the planet with recorded history that predates the founding of just about every other country on the planet, yet it is still considered as developing? Why?

All that history yet so many people in world governments, the UN and the general public are obsessed with saying China is a developing nation.

For centuries China chose to be an agricultural nation. In the latter half of the 20th century they chose to become a more industrialized nation.

Agricultural or industrial does not matter in the true definition of a developed nation. China has a very long history of having developed art, culture, building styles, weapons, etc. Who are we to impose western values on them and call them UNDEVELOPED.

The dirty secret is that many in the Chinese leadership laugh at westerners when we cut them slack on issues like, human rights, toxic pollution and the 20th century evil of greenhouse gas emissions because we have labeled them as a poor undeveloped nation.

The truth is the US and many countries in the EU are heavily indebted to China. So if China is so darn poor, how are they lending US money?

Your talk of the World bank forcing developing nations to sell resources to US companies is out of touch with 21st century reality. Just look around at the Chinese companies buying up rare earth mines and other resources from Africa to Australia and Afghanistan , the US, Mexico and Canada for great examples of how wrong you are in your observation.

Whatever is behind your knee jerk reaction to blame US companies seems to be blinding you to the bigger economic force at work in the world today. China.

Do not feel bad. Many people have a problem adjusting to the USs position as a weaker economic power on the world stage.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 4th Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
The sheer insanity of it all makes one dizzy.
We even borrow money from China to then turn around to give to China as "aid". And then pay interest for the privilege. Is there any context where this would seem like sane policy?

We spend the better part of a trillion dollars liberating Afghanistan, move out, and then watch China move in to harvest the place.

If I were to be able to live a few hundred years, it would only be to see how historians of a future civilization would objectively view this level of insanity.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 29th Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!