In a world that is now serious about climate change, environmentalists will have to review their prejudices. A controversy involving Eskom’s Medupi power station offers a cautionary tale about costs that may be hidden in the flood of cheap climate funding we are hoping for.
So why did SA take funding from the World Bank that required it to prepare to install equipment that might not be needed? Since 1994 the government had resisted borrowing from the Bank because of concerns about the onerous conditionalities it often imposed on its clients. That approach allowed the World Bank to go ahead with its Medupi loan, with the condition that flue gas desulphurisation treatment be implemented if required by regulators. The bank’s language was careful: “Although the risk for human health effects remains low,” its appraisal report stated, “the bank believes that installation of FGD ... would be consistent with internationally recognised good practice.
The compromise was a confused headline statement that “reductions in methane emissions would also limit the warming effect resulting from declining aerosol pollution and would improve air quality”.
United Kingdom United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
MIKE MULLER: How environmentalists got their aim wrong and shot SA in both feetWorld Bank demanded scrubbers to cut sulphur dioxide from Medupi, but the gas can actually slow global warming
Source: BDliveSA - 🏆 12. / 63 Read more »
MIKE MULLER: How environmentalists got their aim wrong and shot SA in both feetWorld Bank demanded scrubbers to cut sulphur dioxide from Medupi, but the gas can actually slow global warming
Source: BDliveSA - 🏆 12. / 63 Read more »