[ad_1]
IN 2009, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) developed a “clean energy agenda.” The agenda was a response to the call by UN agencies and the global civil society movement for the world to phase out greenhouse gas-emitting carbon and fossil-based power plants, the leading cause of global warming. . Uncontrolled, the rise in global temperature has been causing monstrous planetary problems like violent storms, droughts, rising sea levels, etc. The Philippines is among the five most vulnerable countries in the world to the risks of climate change.
ADB’s 2009 Energy Policy envisioned a “transition” to a low-carbon economy while meeting people’s needs for cheap and reliable energy. The ADB links this transition to various development goals: poverty reduction, environmental protection, public participation, good governance, gender equity, food security, sustainable agriculture, etc. The ADB also describes various programs that promote renewable energy in energy development. Wrote:
“Support for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy projects will be prioritized and expanded to reach as many sectors as possible. This will [a] Facilitate growth in demand for fossil fuels and upward pressure on energy prices. [b] improve energy security, and [c] reduce greenhouse gas emissions “.
And yet environmental groups that have been monitoring energy projects in Asia are baffled by the Bank’s green resolve. They see that the Bank continues to finance coal and gas plants. Hence, criticism of CSOs that the Bank is simply engaging in “greenwashing” rhetoric.
Evidence: the adverse finding of the Center for Energy, Ecology and Development in its review and documentation of the Bank’s energy loan program since 2009. CEED concluded that the ADB’s involvement in dirty energy projects has been enormous. The gas and coal plants financed by the ADB represent 50 percent of the “total installed capacity of all the power generation projects financed by the ADB in the last decade.” Yes, ADB has been involved in the construction of various renewable projects: solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal. But this has not erased the fact that ADB’s involvement remains primarily with gas and coal. And this at a time when Europe and a growing number of developed countries have been exiting gas and coal!
But late last month (August), the ADB’s Independent Evaluation Department made a surprise announcement: “The ADB should withdraw funds from new coal projects.” IED director Nathan Subramaniam was quite blunt: ADB’s energy policy must be “aligned with the global consensus on climate change.” The FDI recommendation was also straightforward:
“Review and update the Energy Policy, emphasizing mitigation and adaptation to climate change as a central priority; formally withdraw from financing additional new capacity from coal-fired power and heat generation plants, while assisting DMCs [developing member countries] phase out coal-based power and mitigate the environmental and health impacts of the existing coal fleet; introducing sound detection criteria for other fossil fuels … “
So will ADB’s top management, which is holding its Annual Meeting this week, will formally accept the recommendation of the previous IED? If so, will you also introduce a “phase-out” program for existing coal and gas plants, including those that have been built only in the last 10 years?
What are the guidelines to follow to comply with the IED recommendation?
Along these lines, CEED presented the following proposals:
1. Align Energy Policy with the 2015 Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. The point is that the ADB should not hide behind rhetorical generalizations like “clean energy” or “climate agenda”. Alignment with Paris means measuring emission reductions, a technical process that ADB can easily facilitate, and building partnerships with Member Countries on how to meet the goal of the Paris Agreement.
2. Declare a full commitment to divest from all energy and coal mining projects, including coal infrastructure. For existing coal projects and other carbon-intensive projects, the Bank must develop a program for “rapid phase-out beginning with the adoption of an ambitious transition plan.”
3. Promote community microgrids. These networks have become viable given the dramatic drop in the costs of solar and wind technologies. Community microgrids are also a good instrument to build solidarity and cohesion within the community, especially in depressed and underdeveloped areas.
4. Support innovations and enabling infrastructures. The idea is to give priority attention to renewable energy technologies.
To the above CEED recommendations, two more important points can be added:
First, building partnerships to go green is a great idea. But it should expand and involve society in general. Therefore, it should not be limited to the partnership between the ADB and the national government. Nor with the private sector, a favorite ADB funding approach that many CSOs are questioning. The creation of alliances with civil society and popular organizations such as trade unions should be expanded. ADB should not meet with them just for the purpose of sharing information and nothing else.
Finally, the ADB should develop a green transformation program for the entire region, as well as for individual partner countries. A “decarbonized” Asian economy is in the best interest of the ADB and the 68 countries it is supposed to serve.
