Home | About | Donate

'This. Is. Big.': After Years of Pressure, World Bank to Drastically Curb Funding of Fossil Fuels


'This. Is. Big.': After Years of Pressure, World Bank to Drastically Curb Funding of Fossil Fuels

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

"The World Bank's announcement today is an important milestone; but more still needs to be done," says 350.org.

there is no planet b


Could it be TRUE? Have they actually come to their senses and made a good decision? (What’s the other shoe that will drop to make this all just smoke and mirrors???)


California fire victims and dying corals will have to wait till 2019, but its a positive step. What will Trump and the Kochs do?

Direct Democracy


" #NotAPennyMore means stopping funding to ALL fossil fuel projects - including coal and infrastructure"
Wait a second- stop all funding including infrastructure? How does that even make sense? Without petrochemical and coal production for infrastructure you cannot manufacture the materials needed to construct solar, wind and hydro plants. Why on earth are you supporting this? I know Bill Mcibben is a lot smarter than this and that slogan is mostly a marketing hashtag, but please we need be more realistic about goals here.


Your comment is largely muddled at least and perhaps intentional misinformation. How does new infrastructure funding/financing inhibit the growth of sustainable green energy? Aren’t there already a surfeit of more than adequate infrastructure to grow climate friendly development.

What doesn’t make sense is your comment…or nit-picking, or false/misleading analysis either. “impossible for Gov Cuomo to eliminate all new fossil fuel infrastructure, given the plan to remove Indian Point Nuclear plant by 2022” - IP is a potential catastrophic disaster waiting to happen - the new 42" high pressure gas pipeline running thru the plant site is an enormus threat to the plants safety. Leaks into the ground-water ad Hudson river and increased thyroid cancers near the plant also MORE than enough reasons to shut it down NOW, not in 4 years! the scam is the plant will likely be mothballed for 60 years under the “SAF-STOR” plan that should not be tolerated!. The energy IP produces would _no_t affect any NY energy needs evne in high use seasons. Your facts and premise are faulty…

Perhaps what we need is a Manhattan Project like endeavor (without all the spook secrecy and atom bomb BS) involving great minds rather than profits uber alles to create FAST the green energy current society needs without catering to old money and greed, or destroying the future of all life on Earth…that means putting people and Earth first, not money or profits or propping-up the poisonous fossil fuels industry!


Sorry. My comment below wasn’t supposed to be a reply to yours.


Good. Whether the angle is political, economic, or humanitarian, it’s about damn time.

Now a question. How many of you are willing to make the needed personal sacrifices, such as ditching your car, supporting a twenty dollar a gallon tax on gasoline, campaigning to outlaw most of the useless shit we unthinkingly consume, and drastically reducing the amount of animal food you eat?


Finally, Progress.

The opposite of, Congress.


By 2019? The World Bank is just buying more time to rape the Earth for corporate fossil fuel profits while they still can. If climate change is going to stay within the survivable limit of 2 degrees increase, limiting fossil fuel emissions has to start NOW!!
"So, here we are, rushing up on the year 2020. The path now is steep as hell. To have a chance to keep global warming within something close to 2ºC, we must level off our climate emissions by 2020, and then cut our CO2 emissions in half every decade for the next three decades — while ending deforestation and soil degradation, changing animal agriculture and continuing to eliminate super-potent greenhouse chemicals like refrigerants.

The new curve we’re now on demands downright disruptive emissions cuts. When we consider the big picture, though, the action we need may actually be considerably more challenging even than this breakneck decarbonization."



And here is another article about why speed matters, from Bill McKibbon: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bill-mckibben-winning-slowly-is-the-same-as-losing-w512967


“Aren’t there already a surfeit of more than adequate infrastructure to grow climate friendly development.” In the USA there is not. Solar, wind, and hydropower makes up a combined 13% of all electricity used in the USA. This means if you want to remove all fossil fuels, you must build more solar, wind and hydropower. What do all three of these energy sources require as a part of construction? Concrete. In order to make concrete you not only require fossil fuels for heating, but you also require coal slag, petroleum coke or coal coke as a fine aggregate to make concrete. However according to 350.org now we need to remove all investment into concrete production that utilizes fossil fuels, which is literally the entire concrete manufacturing industry.

This is a ridiculous goal, as concrete is a fundamental building material in all construction including renewables. This is not a false or misleading analysis. The tweet literally states that funding of fossil fuels must terminated and it even explicitly mentions fossil fuel investment into infrastructure. You cannot suggest a full termination of fossil fuel products, but then make exceptions- to do so would go against your own claim.


I now see the majority of your comment has nothing to do with my comment on this page. Not sure why youre talking about the nuclear comment I made on a completely different topic, when you could’ve just responded on that topic’s page.


Whats interesting is you claim my comment about Indian point was misleading, yet you never actually address my comment. Instead of talking about why New York doesn’t need Indian Point, your entre comment is about how dangerous the facility is. Regardless of the facility’s risk that doesn’t change the fact that Indian Point makes up 25% of New York’s electricity, and you cant replace a loss like that without natural gas in five years.


Permafrost covers vast area of the world’s surface, and it holds large quantities of methane, a gas many times more devastating than CO2 for global warming. An obscure report came out of the northern most outpost of human habitation saying that the permafrost on which the town is built is almost all gone. Are we too late?

I cannot stand to watch, and I do not recommend it on a full stomach, the video images of an emaciated polar bear, hardly able to crawl, scavenging around trash cans for food. Have we no pity?