Bill Clinton vs. the World Bank

Clinton's push for sustainable development dismissed by World Bank prez

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 4:19 PM on 27 Sep 2007

The opening plenary was fascinating. Clinton explained how CGI commitments had already avoided 20,000,000 tons of greenhouse gases. Then he tried to get Robert Zoellick, head of the World Bank, to realize that the "Bank can show people options for sustainable development."

Zoellick, however, was full of little more than platitudes, saying we need to address "questions of adaptation and mitigation," and noting that there is a sensitivity in the developing world that climate change funds will come at the expense of development -- totally missing Clinton's point that green development is the only winning path (and Gore's point that global warming, left unchecked, will negate all other efforts aimed at development).

Clinton, however, persisted -- especially after H. Lee Scott, CEO of Wal-Mart, touted his various successes:

Scott explained that they are on track to sell 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs, the equivalent of taking 700,000 cars off the road, and reducing packaging by 5%, the equivalent of taking 100,000 6-mpg diesel trucks off the road. As one small example of how they were working with suppliers, Scott talked about suggesting to General Mills they straighten the noodles in Hamburger Helper, which allowed a smaller package.

Clinton then came back, reiterated his point that the World Bank could play a key role in fostering sustainable development, adding, "if Wal-Mart makes profits reducing its carbon footprint, we need an institution that helps governments reach such conclusions on clean energy."

But it was lost on Zoellick. As the media has reported, in 2006, investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency were only "20 percent of the Bank's total energy sector commitments." We'll have to wait for a new U.S. president -- and a new Bank president -- for a real push for sustainable development.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Bill Clinton vs. the World Bank
3 Comments | Post a Comment

If only Clinton had . . .

. . . been as insistent with the World Bank president when Clinton held influence over the bank.

Instead protesters got themselves arrested over the carbon-promoting investments of the World Bank under Clinton's appointed president James Wolfensohn.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

by NonprofitWatch at 6:45 PM on 27 Sep 2007

Figure it this way

You can teach a man to fish, and feed him for the rest of his life.

Or you can give a man a fish, which he cannot repay, and charge him interest for it.

Thats the World Bank's approach.

They prefer "mega projects" over "micro projects"

Even though the mega projects cost more, have more money going to political graft, and often just sink the country deeper into debt.

Thats the whole idea. Give em a million dollars for an elaborate project they don't actually need, and charge them 20% interest rates on it.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 9:48 PM on 27 Sep 2007

Hey, You Know What Would Great??!

Guys...GUYS...QUIET...SHHH...

You know what would like be so cool...shhh...LISTEN.

Ok, like if Bill Clinton, like teamed up with Al Gore and like Bill would be Prezzz-i-dent, and like Al would be like...the 2nd guy and all.

Wouldn't that be totally cool if they like got the maximum term of two 5 year terms so they could be all Green and spend our parents tax money and stuff on the environment and that's like all they would do and they'd party in the White House with Hillary and the young people....

What?

It already happened?

When....?

by jabailo at 11:55 PM on 27 Sep 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.