World Bank to stop funding oil and gas exploration

29 comments on “World Bank to stop funding oil and gas exploration ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   14 December 2017 at 8:53 am

   Still a ways to go then 🙁

   $1 Billion from the $71.8 Billion cited in the post’s link to “Priceofoil.org” sounds like something- even if it does only amount to something not much over 1%.

   But when that $71.8 Billion figure is stacked against an IMF figure of $5.3 Trillion for 2015 that was up from $4.9 Trillion for 2013….
   • adam 1.1

     14 December 2017 at 11:16 am

     Here was me thinking it was fake news, and bugger me, you look at the figures, and it is fake news.
     • Bill 1.1.1

       14 December 2017 at 11:40 am

       Optimistically misleading? 😉

       Anyway. A further thought that crossed my mind is that the WB is basically in the business of lending to governments. And that governments the WB lends to probably aren’t that heavily (ie – directly) involved in the fossil fuel industry.

       If they’d said they were killing all lending etc as from mid-night tonight And if that had come alongside a statement from the G20 that that they were going to fund Annex 2 countries to the tune of some trillions (not the paltry 100 million Paris threw up) and announced that in tandem with debt forgiveness for the global south (annex 2)….then yeah.

       There might have been reason to say that something genuinely positive and meaningful was on the table.

       But $1 billion being cut in two years time when the yearly increase to subsidies sits around the $500 billion mark is a bit underwhelming.
     • weka 1.1.2

       14 December 2017 at 12:12 pm

       Are you saying that the announcement is lying about the WB stopping subsidies for upstream oil/gas? Sorry, not following the argument here.
       • adam 1.1.2.1

         14 December 2017 at 2:45 pm

         It’s a feel good story without much substance.

         In that, if you look at the money and whose funding what – it’s a very nice smoke screen. Like Bill said, it’s a less than 1% drop in investment.

         So I’m not willing to break out the party supplies just yet.
         • marty mars 1.1.2.1.1

           14 December 2017 at 3:01 pm

           1.4% by the figures bill gave and my rough calculation – how did you get less than 1%?
           • adam 1.1.2.1.1.1

             14 December 2017 at 3:07 pm

             My bad, causing a argument over 0.5 of a percent. Please accept my apologies.
             • marty mars …

               14 December 2017 at 3:20 pm

               Accepted
         • weka 1.1.2.1.2

           14 December 2017 at 5:51 pm

           So the World Bank *is stopping funding, but you think it’s without substance because it’s not other lenders as well? This is essentially the same argument about why should NZ drop its emissions when it’s such a small country. So by your argument, NZ addressing its emissions is without substance because the US isn’t. That’s daft af.

           Can’t believe I am having to point this out, but the value in the WB doing this is that (a) it sends a strong signal to the organisations and countries within its remit (b) it supports defunding from oil in general (c) it’s part of a whole movement around CC and putting an end to the industry (d) we need the WB to stop along with everyone else.

           We’re approaching a tipping point around divestment. This is good news.
           • Bill 1.1.2.1.2.1

             14 December 2017 at 10:15 pm

             An ~ $500 billion year on year increase in subsidy equals “approaching a tipping point”?

             One org that (it seems) was barely involved in fossil has said that in two years time it will only fund downstream fossil ventures is “sending a signal”?

             The reason I say “barely involved” is that if all its upstream support added up to $1 billion, it’s nothing in the scheme of things. It’s a small player.

             There is the “brand” recognition, and that is perhaps worth something in the scheme of things. Unfortunately, I imagine that “brand recognition” will be used to sell the idea that something substantial is being done.

             Most people won’t look at the figures and numbers, and will also miss the fact that they are not saying that they will stop lending/funding for fossil. (ie – that they only say they are curtailing upstream funding)

             It’s spin.
     • marty mars 1.1.3

       14 December 2017 at 2:59 pm

       I dont think you know what fake news is adam if you think this is it. Try wiki.
       • adam 1.1.3.1

         14 December 2017 at 3:08 pm

         I think fake news is news generated for corporate propaganda purposes, what do you think it is marty mars?
         • marty mars 1.1.3.1.1

           14 December 2017 at 3:25 pm

           And political purposes too – what is the fake news bit from this story? Seems straight to me or is 1.4% reduction, based on bills figures, not a reduction? Sure it’s not enough but it’s not fake, is it?
           • adam 1.1.3.1.1.1

             14 December 2017 at 3:40 pm

             It’s propaganda. So fake news
             • marty mars …

               14 December 2017 at 4:11 pm

               Fake news is a subset of propaganda not vice versa in my understanding of the terms.
         • weka 1.1.3.1.2

           14 December 2017 at 5:53 pm

           Fake news would be if there was no value in what they were doing and they were spinning it as something it’s not. I can’t see either of those things happening here, but maybe you can make an actual argument here?
     • Bill 1.1.4

       15 December 2017 at 10:31 am

       Here’s some unspun truth.

       Running in tandem with that World Bank announcement (same summit) we have (drum roll) the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.

       Under the plan, companies pledge to use their financial reports to disclose their direct and indirect exposure to global warming under a range of different scenarios.

       (because)

       “Markets need the right information to seize the opportunities and mitigate the risks that are being created by the transition to a low-carbon economy,” Carney said. “This solution, of the market and for the market, is truly entering the mainstream.”

       And the risks are?

       …a repeat of the 2008 banking crisis.
   • marty mars 1.2

     14 December 2017 at 2:58 pm

     The imf figure is available subsidies isn’t it? How does that relate to the story of the stopping of funding by the world bank?
     • Bill 1.2.1

       14 December 2017 at 3:51 pm

       The IMF figure is a calculation of total subsidies. (It’s explained in the link I provided).

       $1 Billion amounts to less than half the amount that NZ subsidises fossil in a year.

       The $71.8 Billion is direct finance and isn’t my figure. It’s the figure provided, in part by the WWF. They are a source I’d be taking with a pinch of salt given that it’s widely accepted they push pro-corporate agendas. (Google WWF controversy for more if you’re interested in the details)

       The WB is redirecting or ending its funding. (Though not, it seems for downstream operations or projects) Good. But perspective and context matters. (To me anyway)

       $1 billion as a percentage of $5.3 trillion is …well, not a lot at all.
       • marty mars 1.2.1.1

         14 December 2017 at 4:05 pm

         So direct finance does not relate to total subsidies. Apart from the financials for the deals which considers both.

         1 billion isn’t a lot compared to a billion trillion million either but it is a lot compared to zero. 1 billion is now zero according to how I understood the information in the post.
       • weka 1.2.1.2

         14 December 2017 at 5:56 pm

         “But perspective and context matters. (To me anyway)”

         Me too, but so does supporting change. Hence “the WB is stopping funding, great, and we need others to follow suit and here’s what we need to do next”, vs “the WB is stopping funding, whoopdeshit, drop in the bucket, it’s all propaganda”. The former will engage people and get them to change, the latter is bah humbug. Not saying that is you, but that the general tenor of this subthread comes across like that.
         • Bill 1.2.1.2.1

           14 December 2017 at 6:09 pm

           Your dichotomy isn’t useful by my way of thinking.

           False hope and/or baseless optimism is poison in my book.

           How many people could read about that WB funding and think things were moving forwards and then disengage or not engage because (they believe) “it’s all being taken care of”?

           What does 1 Billion buy these days? An oil distillery? (I don’t know)

           And if they are still investing or loaning for downstream projects – and I assume they are since they specifically mention ‘up-stream’ – then is it even any kind of disinvestment at all? (I don’t know that either, but the question, surely, ought to be asked)

           edit – I know a distillery is ‘down stream”, but just trying to get a perspective on money to “kit”.
2. marty mars 2

   14 December 2017 at 9:34 am

   Good move that will send the correct message. Hopefully all the dirty exploitation plans around and on/within our south sea islands will now be stopped FOR GOOD.
3. Koff 3

   14 December 2017 at 9:51 am

   An opportunity for our coalition govt to show some leadership here on cc action and complement the WB initiative. A good start would be to send the “Beast” (Statoil sonar research vessel) packing from Taranaki and stop the open cast mine from going ahead on the SI West Coast. Very little noise on agreed environmental policy yet from the new govt, but maybe got their hands full at the mo.
   • greywarshark 3.1

     14 December 2017 at 3:36 pm

     +1
4. cleangreen 4

   14 December 2017 at 10:59 am

   As a result of this climate change article and others seen recently, we sent our letter to all ministers in Government today. 14/12/17.

   TO; Ministers,

   At the ‘One Planet Climate Change Summit’ this week in Paris 12-15th December 2017.

   NZ is cited as investors in our ‘Superfund’ among big investors pressuring climate polluters.

   NZ Government must now use Rail freight as it will greatly reduce our use and dependence on fossil fuels that cause climate change, and will save our cost of paying for “carbon credits” also.

   http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/arctic-climate-change-report-sea-temperature-rise-melting-ice-caps-polar-environment-global-warming-a8106161.html

   1. Environment
   ‘Arctic climate ‘report card’ reveals ‘rapid and dramatic changes’ to the polar environment.’
   The latest warnings on this link above must be taken seriously now as time is short for saving our planet.

   Please respond to our request for press coverage as government is close to shutting down for two months shortly please.
   Warmest regards,

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/346052/nz-super-among-big-investors-pressuring-climate-polluters
   Radio New Zealand

   BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
   13 Dec 2017
   NZ Super among big investors pressuring climate polluters
   7:06 am on 13 December 2017

   Anusha Bradley, Journalist
   @AnushaBradley anusha.bradley@radionz.co.nz
   The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is among a group of powerful investors putting pressure on the world’s biggest polluters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

   Campaigners in Paris urge companies at the summit to phase out fossil fuels. Photo: AFP

   The global campaign, dubbed Climate Action 100 plus, was launched at the One Planet Summit in Paris marking two years since the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement.

   The summit brings together 225 of the world’s largest institutional investors which have more than $US26 trillion invested in 100 of the world’s largest emitters.

   They include ExxonMobil, General Electric, and Rio Tinto.

   Investor Group on Climate Change chief executive Emma Herd said investors were trying to force these companies to clean up their act by engaging with them.

   Abridged – RNZ / Reuters
5. Siobhan 5

   14 December 2017 at 11:34 am

   Maybe if the World bank stopped promoting Debt we could see a real change.
   Any country trying to service those debts is hardly going to turn away oil and gas or any other exploitative industry..all this means is they will now have to set up without World bank backing…though if they do cut these ties I am curious how these countries are going to pay debt without this income flow, though I’m sure the free market neo liberals have some excellent ideas…

   “According to World Bank data, in 2010 alone, developing countries paid out $184 billion on debt service, about three times the annual resources required for the fulfillment of the MDGs. Even more troublesome, between 1985 and 2010 net public debt flows to developing countries, that is the difference between debt inflows and debt payments, have reached -$530 billion |4|. To place this number in context, this is the equivalent of five Marshall Plans.”

   https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-debt-of-developing-countries-the-devastating-impacts-of-imf-world-bank-economic-medicine/5354027

   https://chomsky.info/20070516/
   • adam 5.1

     14 December 2017 at 2:46 pm

     But debt peons are all the rage!!
6. eco maori 6

   14 December 2017 at 8:21 pm

   Many thanks to the World Bank for sending a clear message to the rest of the World that fossils fuel is going to be a fuel of the past.
   To Dywayne Douglas Johnson The Rock I say go for it someone needs to clean that up and I think your the man for the job it will be a major challenge but I’m sure you will achieve your goals. Kai kaha

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS