<
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/24/world-bank-decries-disastrous-fossil-fuel-agriculture-fisheries-subsidies/>
"
CleanTechnica readers may recall that last fall, David Malpass, the head of
the World Bank, refused to acknowledge that anthropomorphic climate change was
a thing. “I’m not a scientist,” he wailed while promoting policies that
increased lending by the World Bank to fossil fuel projects. What else would
you expect from someone who was installed in office through the auspices of the
Monster From Mar-A-Lago?
But now Malpass is gone, replaced by Ajay Banga, who made a name for himself as
the head of Mastercard International. The change in the organization has been
immediate. Just a few weeks after Banga assumed his new duties, the World Bank
issued a scathing report entitled
Detox Development: Repurposing
Environmentally Harmful Subsidies that calls for reducing or eliminating the
trillions upon trillions of dollars governments use to prop up the fossil fuel,
agriculture, and fisheries industries, saying they are causing “environmental
havoc.”
Many countries spend more on those harmful subsidies than they do on health,
education, or poverty reduction, the report says. The subsidies are entrenched
and hard to reform since the biggest beneficiaries tend to be rich and
powerful. Reforming subsidies would provide vital funding to fight the climate
and nature crises at a time when public coffers are severely stretched, the
report says.
Just this week, world leaders gathered in Paris to try to figure out how
wealthy nations could meet their obligation to help poorer countries respond to
the challenges of a hotter planet. Redirecting those toxic subsidies could go a
long way toward making that possible.
In addition to direct subsidies of more than $7.5 trillion each year, there are
also implicit subsidies such as waived taxes and the cost of the damage caused
by global heating and air pollution. Those cost another $6 trillion a year, or
about $23 million a minute, every hour of every day, all year long. The report
claims the bulk of the subsidies are regressive, benefiting the rich more than
the poor, and that direct aid to the poorest would be far more efficient. Here
is a synopsis of the report."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
