subsidise dirty coal? Update: a vehement response to the article from the World Bank The amount of rain that fell during your first year of life affects subsequent educational achievement, health, height and wealth [h/t Keith Johnston] When will the IMF get rid of its ideological blinkers on regulating capital? Kevin Gallagher discusses why the Fund should be less grudging on Brazil’s use of capital controls. I won’t be at the climate summit (Oxfam capping numbers and all that), but if you want to see what we’re up to go here The Information is Beautiful website pulls together (and turns into graphics) the Climate Deniers vs Climate Consensus debates [h/t Richard King] And finally, watch the crushing advance of the US recession, from the coasts inwards [h/t Eddy Lambert] ]]>
The title “World Back and dirty coal” is catching my eyes especially when the Copenhagen summit is going on. Thanks for the editor of the posting gave the arguments from both Phil Radford who accused the World Bank of subsidizing coal project, and the World Bank who defended for itself. As a reader, it’s hard to figure out the truth. But I think the two articles reflect the importance of international organizations to support the effort against climate change. Since their polices mean a lot to the development of the poor countries, they should provide convenience for them to access to clean technologies and reduce environmentally unfriendly practice.
What I can say, World Bank is kind of corrupt anyway.
The dirty coal won’t help much, as much the living of the poor.
Nuff said.