Coal Plants and Barefoot College

• Author: Bruce Rich
• Position: Attorney and author who has served as senior counsel for major environmental organizations
• Pages: 20-20

Page 20 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, Jan./Feb. 2010

International agenc ies

continue to nance

major new investm ents

in fossil fuels

Coal Plants and

Barefoot College

As the urgency of f‌ighting global

warming grows, so does the dis-

appointment with the climate ne-

gotiations. At times the process has

resembled an elaborate decade-and-

a-half exercise of kicking the prover-

bial can (in this case a desperately

needed agreement on large green-

house gas reductions by all major

emitters) down the road. Worse, the

international agencies that are posi-

tioning themselves to manage new

funds for climate mitigation and

adaptation in developing nations

are continuing to f‌inance major new

investments in fossil fuel intensive

power, especially coal plants.

A lead example remains the

World Bank, which while increas-

ing its lending for renewable energy

and ef‌f‌iciency, also continues to lend

for new coal plants. Last June it ap-

proved a $180 million loan — f‌irst

of a planned series — for life exten-

sion and rehabilitation of existing

coal plants in India. According to

the bank, there is at least 25 giga-

watts of coal-f‌ired capacity in India

that with more investment can be

rehabilitated and modernized, which

does make them more ef‌f‌icient (and

emit less carbon) but also extends

their operating life by decades.

On October 29, the bank ap-

proved $379.1 million in loans and

guarantees for a new 600 megawatt

coal-f‌ired power plant in Botswana

— a country where there is a huge

potential for solar thermal power

development, estimates former lead

economist in the bank’s environment

department David Wheeler, now at

the Center for Global Development.

e bank is also considering lending

$3.75 billion to the South African

national utility to help f‌inance more

than 12 gigawatts of new coal-f‌ired

plants.

Continuing to fund dirty power

projects instead of low-carbon ener-

gy technology only ends up hurting

the poor in the long run by placing

them at increased risk of extreme

weather, sea level rise, and natural

disasters. e World Bank states in

its f‌lagship World Development Re-

port 2010 that “developing countries

are more exposed and less resilient

to climate hazards,” that “develop-

ing countries will bear most of the

costs of the damages — some 75–80

percent,” and that “warming of 2°

Celsius could result in a 4 to 5 per-

cent permanent reduction in annual

income per capita

in Africa and South

Asia, as opposed to

minimal losses in

high-income coun-

tries.”

An alternative

global energy path

is feasible. Stanford and University

of California researchers Mark Ja-

cobsen and Mark Delucchi estimate

in the November issue of Scientif‌ic

American that the supplies of wind

and solar energy potentially acces-

sible are many multiples of current

and projected world energy de-

mand. In addition, the generating

costs of these technologies would be

less than those of fossil fuels and nu-

clear. e researchers maintain that

scaled up wind power will cost half

the estimated 2020 generating and

transmission expenses of fossil fuels,

and solar thermal power would be at

parity.

Meanwhile, India is f‌inalizing a

National Solar Mission, which envis-

ages installing 20 gigawatts of pho-

T D W

tovoltaic and solar thermal power by

2020 and 200 gigawatts by 2050.

e ambition of this plan is breath-

taking; world solar power produc-

tion is now around 14 gigawatts.

e vision for an alternative path

can be found among the very poor

in developing nations, in whose

name public international f‌inance

continues to subsidize giant coal

plants. Take India’s Social Work

and Research Centre — known as

the Barefoot College — founded by

Ghandian social activist Bunker Roy

in 1972. e Barefoot College has

trained hundreds of poor villagers

as grassroots solar power installation

workers and engineers. ey’ve in-

stalled photovoltaic units across In-

dia in the poorest and most remote

areas and have expanded their ef‌forts

to villages in eight other countries

in Asia, Africa, and South America.

It is a bottom-up ef‌fort to provide

climate-friendly electricity and em-

ployment from which centralized

international agencies could learn

much — in fact help

to replicate if they

changed their modus

operandi.

After nearly four

decades of witness-

ing the mixed record

of international de-

velopment lending in India, Bunker

Roy wrote in a 2007 New York Times

oped that “any goal that is driven

from the top by international donors

and governments not accountable

to the communities and without f‌i-

nancial transparency is doomed to

fail. at model encourages colossal

falsif‌ication of f‌igures, the excessive

hiring of private consultants and

contractors, conf‌licts of interest and

a massive patronage system.” No

more timely words could be spoken

as we consider Copenhagen and be-

yond.

Bruce Rich is an attorney and au thor who

has ser ved as s enior couns el f or m ajor

environ mental organizatio ns. His email is

brucemrich@gmail.com.

By Bruce Rich