The IPCC’s auhoritative report on Mitigation of Climate Change shows clearly that there is no realistic prospect of holding warming below 2°C. Most emissions will result from the rapid industrialization of developing countries like India and China who cannot and will not switch from the cheapest energy sources available while they remain poor.
If the problem is as grave and urgent as claimed there is no alternative but for developed nations who can afford the cost to switch from cheaper fossil fuels to more expensive nuclear power and also to pay the costs of the entire world doing the same. But the World Bank does not advocate that, so it is difficult to believe it takes its own hype seriously.
Original from: http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wbimf
Through loans, often to governments whose constituents suffer the most under the global economy, and “structural adjustment” policies, the World Bank (WB) International Monetary Fund (IMF) has kept most nations of the global south in poverty. Conditions on accepting loans ensure open market access for corporations while cutting social spending on programs such as education, health care and production credits for poor farmers.
Created after World War II to help avoid Great Depression-like economic disasters, the World Bank and the IMF are the world’s largest public lenders, with the Bank managing a total portfolio of $200 billion and the Fund supplying member governments with money to overcome short-term credit crunches.
- Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the IMF
- Five Case Studies
- The Origins of the IMF and World Bank
- WB/IMF Fact Sheet
- WB/IMF FAQs
Free Trade Impacts On:
- Food Security, Farming
- Investor Rights or Citizen Rights
- Free Trade, the Environment, and Biotech