A loan ($3 million) for South Africa's coal-fired power was approved by the World Bank on April 8. As a result of environmental and other concerns about the project, countries like the United States, the Netherlands and Britain decided not to support this loan and plant.
The major reason for this power plant is to help reduce and ease the chronic power shortages in South Africa. It is for this reason that the World Bank approved the loan so that the people in South Africa can get reliable electricity supply which can in turn increase the economic growth.
Although this project is for a good cause, the U.S and the other countries are concerned about how this will greatly affect the environment (carbon-emissions). Their concerns don't seem to be compatible to that of the World's Bank; therefore they decided to abstain from the project.
2 comments:
The opposition by the United States and Britain seems a little hypocritical, considering we can attribute most of our economic growth over the past century to coal-powered plants and we continue to develop them today. Taking the environmental stance when considering whether or not to build a plant that would encourage economic development in South Africa is certainly a good thing, but it becomes more hypocritical when the opposing countries don't operate by the same standards they impose on others.
I think it is important for developing countries makes decisions that are good for the environment. If they do not then maybe South Africa will have pollution problems like China. I know it costs more to invest in greener energy alternatives but I believe the benefit of doing so is much greater than not.
Post a Comment