Lagarde: The new Green International Monetary Fund

Christine Lagarde, By Français : Fonds monétaire international (identité du photographe non mentionnée) -, Public Domain,
Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, By Français : Fonds monétaire international (identité du photographe non mentionnée) –, Public Domain,

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

In 1944, the International Monetary Fund was created by world leaders, reeling from the devastation of war and depression, to try to maintain global financial stability – to try to avoid a repeat of the mistakes which led to the Great Depression. But Christine Lagarde, the current head of the IMF, has a new vision; she wants the IMF to become involved in the anticipated $100 billion per annum climate wealth transfers to poor countries.

IMF’s Lagarde eyes subsidies, simple things to tackle climate change

Turning the tide on global warming should be tackled by big and small steps that range from cutting subsidies to riding bicycles, International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde said on Friday.

“Removing fossil fuel subsidies would go a long way to cutting consumption,” Lagarde said in answer to a question at Massachusetts Institute of Technology about how climate change can be addressed.

She had delivered a speech on how to promote growth in the face of an aging population and said that “game changers” including competition among insurers and raising the retirement age could go a long way to helping.

Speaking months after the end of the hottest year on record, Lagarde said “If subsidies were removed and carbon prices set properly now and taxed that would go a long way in addressing the climate change issues the world is facing.”

Read more:

This change in direction has been facilitated by a change to the IMF mandate, which occurred in 2012, shortly after Lagarde was appointed as Managing Director.

From the IMF website;

The IMF, also known as the Fund, was conceived at a UN conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, United States, in July 1944. The 44 countries at that conference sought to build a framework for economic cooperation to avoid a repetition of the competitive devaluations that had contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The IMF’s responsibilities: The IMF’s primary purpose is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system—the system of exchange rates and international payments that enables countries (and their citizens) to transact with each other. The Fund’s mandate was updated in 2012 to include all macroeconomic and financial sector issues that bear on global stability.

Read more:

Given that Europe seems to be suffering a major banking crisis every other year, the Euro is in danger of imminent collapse, China might be on the verge of popping the greatest credit bubble in history, the Russian economy is crumbling, the Middle East is in crisis, and the USA, which is carrying an eye watering $19 trillion public debt, might be on the brink of a naval confrontation with China, you would think global financial stability should perhaps be receiving the undivided attention of at least one multinational agency.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 5, 2016 5:12 pm

..There was a time when people like this would be hung in public ! Alas, there are too many bleeding hearts now that will only learn after the damage is done !

Reply to  Marcus
March 6, 2016 12:52 am

Hempen rope is GREEN

Reply to  Marcus
March 6, 2016 3:21 am

They won’t even learn after the damage is done. this sort makes the same mistake again, again and again.
An example: Suburban roads in Australia have been 60KPH since the metric system was introduced. But the car haters didn’t like the fact that people had to watch out before crossing the roads. So they reduced the speed limit in large parts of Australian cities to 50 KPH. that way, people don’t have to watch out when they cross the road.
But people start to get injured crossing the road – well, they weren’t watching where they went, were they? But were the inattentive pedestrians told off? No, the cars must have been going too fast, so the speed limit got lowered still more. It is now 40 KPH in all shopping precincts in Canberra.

Reply to  Marcus
March 6, 2016 10:05 am

French *and* female – the perfect storm. Should’ve never given ’em the vote, let’s start with that.

Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 5:12 pm

You just have to blame all of the financial woes on AGW!
“..If subsidies were removed and carbon prices set properly now and taxed…”
What is the “proper” price of carbon? And where is the racehorse from the other day to tell her and everyone here that it isn’t “about one element,” lol?

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 6:12 pm

The greens call business expenses claimed for a tax, a subsidy. The reason is that they believe they own all your production and the tax system is there to allow you to keep a little of your efforts, only a little.
Once again it is the green left changing the meaning of a word to to suppress the truth and advance their own agenda(s).
By their definition then, the government doesn’t give useless wind farms and solar farms a subsidy because it is not an operating expense. It is an investment according to their upside down world.

Reply to  Jack
March 5, 2016 6:44 pm

The vast majority of the public doesn’t know the difference between a subsidy and a business expense.
Just try explaining what depreciation and depletion are to people. This is how this kind of thing is gotten away with or those doing this don’t know either.
The public does not have the business education to understand these issues.

Reply to  Jack
March 5, 2016 8:20 pm

Barbara – send the “public” out to run a small family farm for a couple of years so they can learn about sunk costs and depreciation, cash flow, cash accounting and accrual accounting. Most small business folks and farmers understand the terms, but so many well paid hard working people just hear what the media says. They (understandably) don’t have a clue.
Apparently the head of the IMF is in the same sinking ship.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Jack
March 6, 2016 4:21 am

There are two kinds of subsidy. One – where less of your money is taken in tax. Two – where you are given money taken in tax to do something so stupid nobody except a government would do it. I would suggest most people recognise and understand Two best.
Therefore, the green left pedal the lie that fossil fuels receive subsidies in an attempt to get people to think they receive money. Then comes the whopper that somehow unreliable intermittent energy generation will be cheaper than reliable fossil fuel if their subsidies are stopped – meaning tax fossil fuel more of course.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jack
March 6, 2016 1:01 pm

Some interesting statistics:
Way back in 2009…
The estimated annual Tax Breaks for the Big Five Oil
Exxon Mobile________$600M
Conoco Phillips______$600M
B P________________$300M
Using these figures the estimated Tax Break per Barrel of oil
Exxon Mobile________$3.93
Conoco Phillips______$3.99
B P________________$2.11
Average per barrel____$3.34
Total Tax Break (over time)
Oil and Gas 1918 – 2009 (91 years) ___$478.8B
Renewables 1979 – 2009 (30 years)___$67.6B
Average Annual break
Averaged out over the 2009 energy mix
Averaged out over the 2009 energy mix
Other renewables_0.8%
Nuclear and Hydro accounted for 8.1%
Fossils—81% of energy mix with $5.2B per annum = $64.1M per each 1% of energy production
Renew—11% of energy mix with $2.2B per annum = $200M per each 1% of energy production
With the increase in ratio of Renewables to Fossil, the included subsidies will only increase the overall cost
opposed to the lower cost and significantly lower subsidized Fossil Fuels
Doing the math
$64.1M would run $6.4B in annual subsidies for 100% fossil fuels
$200M would run $20T in annual subsidies for 100% renewables

Reply to  Bryan A
March 6, 2016 1:04 pm

Bryan A,
That’s half true (thus, a whole fib). Because you did not post the taxes paid by those companies next to the tax deductions.
Fossil fuel companies pay far more in tax dollars than they ever recieve in deductions.
Do you have any idea of the fraction of the dollars you pay for a gallon of gasoline that are an oil company’s profit percentage, versus the fraction that the government takes? Despite subsidies, the government takes far more money from fossil fuel buyers than the companies you’re trying to demonize.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jack
March 6, 2016 3:27 pm

Now db
Lower the decibels a few notches.
I’m certainly not trying to demonize anyone. least of all the Fossil industry with its modest $5.2 billion per year
I am merely pointing out that the sheer amount of Subsidies paid to renewables is significantly higher than any possible subsidy paid to the fossil industry when averaged out on a percent of energy produced per annum.
If Renewables were 100% of the energy supply at current subsidy levels, the subsidies would be $20 trillion dollars (2009 dollars) per year
Merely pointing out the disparity in the amounts of subsidies per energy source
$6.4 billion per year Fossil @ 100%
$20 trillion per year renewable @ 100%

Chip Javert
Reply to  Jack
March 6, 2016 6:12 pm

Brian A
What you’ve identified in your naiveté or willful ignorance is the tax deductions taken by a set of oil companies – WE’VE LITIGATED THIS 1000 TIMES – THESE ARE NOT SUBSIDIES. These exact same tax deductions, in one form or another (interest expense, depreciation, depletion, etc, etc), are available to the couple of million US companies that file tax returns.
This screed is nothing more than the material falling out the tail-end of a large male bovine.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jack
March 6, 2016 6:43 pm

Subsidies…Tax Deductions…Credits…If you wish to haggle over WORDS, fine, Call them what you will.
My point was simply that
Those that call for an end to Fossil Fuel Subsidies are referring to these very same figures (as well as the Untaxed Carbon [PLANT FOOD] that is contained within it).
Those that call for the end to Fossil Subsidies are talking about both these tax credits and unlevied carbon taxes
Whether the $5.2B per annum is referred to as a Tax Credit or a Subsidy depends upon who you are conversing with and how argumentative you wish to be based on a single word choice
So to avoid an argument ad-nauseum lets simply call it what it could truly be… Graft
Again, My point was simply that the ratio of the amount of graft received per energy venue versus the amount of energy placed into the overall global mix is expressed as 3125/1
Renewables receive $3125 US for every $1 US that the fossil industry receives.
Again, Mince words if you like, You might not even like graft so lets try Unicorn Flatus
And Again
My point was simply that the ratio of the amount of Unicorn Flatus received per energy venue versus the amount of energy placed into the overall global mix is expressed as 3125/1
Renewables receive Unicorn Flatus in the amount of $3125 US for every $1 US that the fossil industry receives in Unicorn Flatus.

Reply to  Jack
March 6, 2016 7:01 pm

Bryan A,
Can we agree that all energy subsidies should be eliminated, stat?
Let the free market decide. It’s far smarter than gov’t bureaucrats.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jack
March 7, 2016 6:07 am

Certainly gets my vote.
I can’t understand why any sane government would think it wise to give away Trillon$, Billion$, or Million$ just to give a seemingly competitive edge to an otherwise uncompetitive sector
Can’t wait for the Trump – Clinton debates

Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 6:15 pm

For the appropriate price for “carbon”, speak to our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.
Ian M

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
March 5, 2016 6:56 pm

MIT has a new study on carbon pricing.
MIT News, Feb.24, 2016
‘Will we ever stop using fossil fuels?’
“Technology-driven cost reductions in fossil fuels will lead us to continue using all the oil, gas, and coal we can burn, unless governments pass new taxes on carbon emissions.”

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
March 5, 2016 7:56 pm

The British Columbia Carbon tax of 2008 has been touted as God’s gift to the world. But here is a glimpse of what’s really taking place.
Business Vancouver, Dec.15, 2015
‘Lifting carbon tax freeze could burn B.C. industries, critics warn’
Since B.C. introduced its carbon tax in 2008, cement imports to B.C. have risen from less than 5% to more than 40%. Caused imports to increase.
Cement production is energy intensive.
According to the Vancouver Sun, March 11, 2015, the cement industry which employs some 3,000 has been marked by down-time and layoffs since the 2008 carbon tax was applied.
There is plenty of information on the internet about this issue but all most people hear is how the carbon tax is and how well it is working.
An added issue:
B.C. Climate Leadership Team, est. April 13, 2015
Recommendations To Government, Oct.31, 2015
The Team included:
Tzeporah Berman, Former Greenpeace International
Nancy Olewiler, associated with NGOs that promote carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade
Thomas Pedersen, IPCC
Report subject to public consultations starting January, 2016

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
March 5, 2016 8:27 pm

Barbara – I may be wrong but I think BC’s largest import is offshore money (which coincidentally increases the demand for cement.)
BC is floating on an ocean of offshore money (well the lower mainland). Recent Point Grey house listed for 7 million got 9 offers with the high bid being 9 million. The owner plans to knock the house down and build a new one.
The lower mainland is golden for those with gold. My kids, on the other hand, struggle to make a living. But it is their choice to live in California north (I left in ’77).
Thanks for the MIT reference.

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
March 5, 2016 8:52 pm

CAC/Cement Association Canada, Feb.17, 2015
‘Cement Industry Welcomes BC Government Action on Carbon Tax’
Transitional incentives $22 million over 3 year period for Cement Industry. Use of incentives.
Greenhouse businesses get 80% rebate on Carbon tax. Use of rebates
Certified farmers don’t pay carbon tax for farm use of gasoline and diesel. Excluded group to help them remain competitive.
There are other B.C. industries in need of carbon tax help to make them competitive.

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
March 6, 2016 12:30 am

Why would anyone want to talk to that twit is beyond me. Of course he has a famous father and nice hair, but beyond that – nothing. He reminds me of those colourful hot-air balloons that can be seen floating up in the summer sky, pretty on the outside but on the inside just a lot of hot air.

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
March 6, 2016 6:53 pm

Bloomberg, Oct.15, 2015
Amanda Lang, Canada’s Leading Business News Anchor, Joins Bloomberg TV Canada as producer and host of Bloomberg North.
Institute for New Economic Thinking/INET, New York City
Amanda Lang, Expert
INET funded by George Soros.

March 5, 2016 5:16 pm

“Removing fossil fuel subsidies would go a long way to cutting consumption,” Lagarde said in answer to a question at Massachusetts Institute of Technology about how climate change can be addressed.
I look forward to Ms Lagarde going to press her case in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Indonesia, among the countries which have the largest fossil fuel subsidies in the world.

Reply to  macleanjstorer
March 5, 2016 9:10 pm

IER, March 2, 2016
‘New England’s CO2 Emissions Rise as Vermont Yankee is Shuttered’
Since the closing of Vermont Yankee at the end of 2014, CO2 emissions rose in New England by about 7% in 2015 as natural gas expanded.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Barbara
March 6, 2016 1:46 pm

Ah-ha! THAT’s why we’ve been so warm lately!

Reply to  Barbara
March 6, 2016 5:05 pm

Univ. Mass., Donahue Institute
‘Economic Impacts of Vermont Yankee Closure, 2014’
Web page has a link to the 18 page report with diagrams on what the projected economic impacts will be on the regional economy.
Employment is included with the domino effects on other businesses.

Reply to  macleanjstorer
March 7, 2016 12:10 pm

That’s exactly right. (Also India and Indonesia have been chronic offenders.)
She’s dogwhistling. 90%+ of FF subsidies came from developing economies. She can quite rightly quote large numbers without lying. But then the green activists can run with it in countries like Oz where they push the lie that it’s a “subsidy” for off-road diesel not to pay road tax. “See, the IMF says it.”

March 5, 2016 5:17 pm

Don’t forget that Christine Lagarde is a gift of France’s “conservative” or “right” party!

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 6, 2016 6:17 pm

Montreal Gazette, June 5, 2015
International Economic Forum, Montreal
Christine Lagarde is on the Board of Governors and Paul Desmarias, Jr. is the Board Chair.

Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 5:35 pm

We have overpopulated the world. While I am a very avid follower of the climate debate based around real science, I do feel that we are creating an unhealthy imbalance through our exploding consumption of hydrocarbons. While it may be temporarily healthy in economic terms in cannot be healthy from an environmental perspective. No such rapid change comes without cost. The laws of nature are unchanged
In the long term I fear that we have the tiger by the tail. The world needs a pandemic of the kind that invariably attacks species that explode in numbers and dominate an environment. It needs this from another perspective too: to bring law makers back to reality. We are being increasingly shackled by regulations that are imposed “for our own good”. We cannot be trusted. I pity the next generations

Michael Carter
Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 5:38 pm

Oh, my main message: Cut all subsidies.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 9:20 pm

Michael, there is an apt response to those who say others should die for the good of the planet because we have overpopulated it. I hear this often but I never hear of people who believe this to have a firm enough conviction or the courage to lead by example.
It does little good to say millions or billions of other people should die, when you are not willing to follow your own advice. Hypocrisy to the nth power. Bah.

Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 6:22 pm

If I took the whole population of the world and plonked them in New Zealand (268 Billion square metres) everyone would have 38 square meters, about the size of a small studio apartment even before we look at vertical living space. If I put them all in Australia – 7.5 Trillion square metres, the very smallest continent, each and every one would have 1000 square meters (a 1/4 acre block) to live on. Humans are nowhere near overpopulated – you need to rethink.

Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 6:46 pm

There is no population problem, especially in the advanced countries that use oil. They are below replacement rate fucundity.
POVERTY causes high birth rates, and the best contraceptive is a college education for women.
Pandemics result in collapsed economies and higher birth rates in the survivors. Think of W.WII as a pandemic event. The result was the baby boom.
Not only are your ethics absent, so is your demographic and economic understanding.
Want to shrink global population? Provide free education in poor countries and a free enterprise system. Population will be shrinking inside 30 years.
Where is fucundity greatest? Islamic countries that forbid girls schools. Go talk to them and leave us alone.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
March 6, 2016 7:24 am

Well said E.M.
Female empowerment through education does two critical things. It eliminates the patriarchal control that subjugates women to the role of servant and reproduction source. Secondly, it delays child birth until women are economically advantaged to support their offspring.
It is no surprise that polygamy is fostered in cultures that deny women educational opportunities like what we see in the Arab world.
Here at home (U.S.) we see the continuous cycle of poverty not because of failed government programs, but because of a culture that condones young women having multiple children from disparate fathers. It is a recipe for poverty that punishes the woman, but none of the progressives seem to care.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 7:20 pm

So a zombie apocalypse would suit you fine?
You realize that the surest form of national birth control is industrial development. More industry lessens the rate of population increase. Japan is below replacement rate. Europe close to it. America also. All over the world more industry means lower population growth. More gas, more oil, more coal! They will stabilize population growth.
You say, “I do feel that we are creating an unhealthy imbalance through our exploding consumption of hydrocarbons.” What’s the imbalance? Name it. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and if, as you say, you follow “the climate debate based around the real science” then you know that increased levels of CO2 are helpful to all plants, thus to all animals, thus to all mankind. Name you imbalance? Your imbalance is just empty words.
You say, “No such rapid change comes without cost. The laws of nature are unchanged”.– What a pompous brainless statement! Exactly what laws of nature are you talking about? Name them! Haha! Can’t name any, huh?
You are just spouting socialist, liberal claptrap.
Eugene WR Gallun

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 8:16 pm

If we stop impeding economic development, the population will peak at 9B in 30 years and your worries will be over. Did you know that 9 B people could fit into Lake Superior with each having 10 square metres to tread water in? That is the size of your “problem”. Allow development of cheap energy for all and we can accelerate this peak. Read up on the miracle of Bangladesh’s economic development over the past couple fo decades. This site is for people with a little more investigationa and understanding than the 50 year old chestnuts that get proffered.
Read this even though the report is trying hard to dull the message of better times.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 5, 2016 10:41 pm

I don’t think you thought this through Gary! If you put 9-billion people into Lake Superior, the waters will rise to unprecedented levels and…oh the humanity and the devastation that will occur.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 6, 2016 4:45 am

And they will pee in the lake, Gary. You know they will.

Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 8:43 pm

A recent Syrian refugee family that came to Canada just had their 11th child born in Canada ( the first born of the 25,000 brought to Canada over the last few months). If they follow what the Canadian norms are, within a generation or two, those families will have less than two children per family.
Clearly the issue is not over-population but under-education and poverty.
We need to help failed states and failed societies, including our own, if we want to live within the resources of our planet. It won’t be in my time but hopefully in my grand children’s.

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
March 7, 2016 12:13 pm

If those Middle East refugees follow the norms of their host society, then there will be 13 in the world doing so.

Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 9:10 pm

You’re nuts. We don’t need a pandemic. We need education, economic growth and wealth creation which leads to lower population growth.

Reply to  Michael Carter
March 5, 2016 9:26 pm

You have the right and the ability to take action on overpopulation by removing yourself from existence. Anyone who really believes in drastic population reduction and advocates it should, at the very least, be willing to take one for the team. I anticipate your imminent obituary.

Reply to  Michael Carter
March 6, 2016 7:13 am

Funny, I read the exact same thing in 1970.
Thing really are not so bleak.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Michael Carter
March 6, 2016 7:40 am

Michael Carter March 5, 2016 at 5:35 pm
” The world needs a pandemic of the kind that invariably attacks species that explode in numbers and dominate an environment”
Would WW III work for you?

Reply to  Michael Carter
March 6, 2016 9:10 am

Rubbish. You are an idiot!

March 5, 2016 5:42 pm

First it was Legarda, now it’s Lagarde. What’s next? Lagerda?

Reply to  Katherine
March 5, 2016 5:57 pm

..Ummmm…La Garbage ???

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 7:29 pm

Marcus — good one — Eugene WR Gsllun

Russell Varnam
March 5, 2016 5:59 pm

Will she cut subsidies to wind, solar, food-to-ethanol, bio-mass? I think not.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Russell Varnam
March 5, 2016 8:18 pm

Will she keep breaking wind? I sure she will.

March 5, 2016 6:35 pm

What’s with that lump of crystalline carbon in her earlobe? A bit unseemly I’d say.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  H.R.
March 5, 2016 7:31 pm

H.R.. — Nice spot! — Eugene WR Gallun

March 5, 2016 6:36 pm
A Liquidity Trap is when Keynesian stimulus breaks down as you near zero interest rates. With the Euro Zone and Japan at negative and the USA barely off zero, “stimulus” is no longer working.
As this malaise spreads, China halts growth and then cash get hoarded (why pay someone to hold your cash? Negative interest rates do that…)
IMHO, it will get a lot worse before it gets better as a large % of global bankers will need a brain retread before they can accept their policies don’t work and the broke the world…

March 5, 2016 7:17 pm

The Economic and Scientific ignorance of the American public and the international intelligentsia knows no limits.

March 5, 2016 8:01 pm

I have no problem with your remarks at all Eric, but did you really have to do the head?
Some things can not be unseen. Please consider your readers.

March 5, 2016 8:31 pm

Well the IMF may have created with good intentions, but many think that it has morphed into an economic monster that should go the way of the dodo:
“The IMF now acts like a global loan shark, exerting enormous leverage over the economies of more than 60 countries. These countries have to follow the IMF’s policies to get loans, international assistance, and even debt relief. Thus, the IMF decides how much debtor countries can spend on education, health care, and environmental protection.”
The IMF has created an immoral system of modern day colonialism that SAPs the poor, serves wealthy countries and Wall Street, is a secretive institution with no accountability whose policies promote corporate welfare, bails out rich bankers and deepen, rather then solve, economic crisis.

March 5, 2016 9:06 pm

““Removing fossil fuel subsidies would go a long way to cutting consumption,”
In the US there are no subsidies. Companies do get tax deductions for risking capital in exploration. Politicians have decided to call these subsidies. Our problem is that our politicians have the idea that all of our money is their’s and that they are being generous by letting us keep some of it.

March 5, 2016 9:31 pm

The IMF, like the World Bank, is mostly sponsored by developed countries.
True or not, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” is an interesting read.
So, who does Christine Lagarde work for?
An apt name perhaps:

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: “Economic hit men,” John Perkins writes, “are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder.”
John Perkins should know—he was an economic hit man. His job was to convince countries that are strategically important to the U.S.—from Indonesia to Panama—to accept enormous loans for infrastructure development, and to make sure that the lucrative projects were contracted to U. S. corporations. Saddled with huge debts, these countries came under the control of the United States government, World Bank and other U.S.-dominated aid agencies that acted like loan sharks—dictating repayment terms and bullying foreign governments into submission.
This New York Times bestseller exposes international intrigue, corruption, and little-known government and corporate activities that have dire consequences for American democracy and the world. It is a compelling story that also offers hope and a vision for realizing the American dream of a just and compassionate world that will bring us greater security.

Good read, how truthful? Who knows.
But the IMF is an interesting group with voting rights watered down so that countries like Tuvalu with a quota of nothing gets a vote, while developed countries have higher quotas (the US has the highest at 17.75% quota; 16.81% voting rights) while their votes get watered down. At some point, when influence is lost, so will the funding be lost. Not to mention “quotas” that remain unfilled. The IMF walks a thin line. The Netherland’s quota is 1.87%, voting right is 1.8%; Russia’s quota is 2.76% and gets 2.64% voting rights.
Seems like the IMF cant fail to fail in the long term except as a pawn in a very large game beyond the ken of most of us.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
March 7, 2016 3:21 am

Perkins was challenged about this story and he published a follow-up book containing stories from many others who participated in the unholy mess, each one describing what they did, where and how. All the links in the chain were exposed.
Based on characterisations in the book, it seems likely that the second Iraq war was an operation run by economic hit men ensconced in the basement of the Whitehouse using ‘jackals’ (Perkins said that is what they are called) and a shock and awe strategy that was supposed to scare the population into submission. Their tactics were a repeat of the attack on Panama where in one neighbourhood 3000 people were killed for no apparent reason, just to teach the rest this was going to be serious.
The plan in Iraq went awry when the locals didn’t respond to the destruction of all their infrastructure in a kindly manner, taking up IED’s and explosive vests to communicate their rather strongly held opinions about ‘surgical strikes’ and economic colonisation. Perkins was right. The deal with Saudi Arabia still stands – the largest in human history, sealed with a kiss (read the book).

March 5, 2016 9:34 pm

“Removing fossil fuel subsidies would go a long way to cutting consumption,”
Translation – Massively raising taxes on fossil fuels would go a long way to cutting consumption.
Meanwhile she’s looking forward to $100 billion per annum climate wealth transfers to poor countries. And with all that new wealth, people in poor countries would be able to buy motor scooters and automobiles and pleasure craft and the like, and world cO2 emissions would go up, if anything.

Reply to  Art
March 6, 2016 7:21 am

And with all that new wealth, RICHpeople in poor countries would be able to buy motor scooters and automobiles and pleasure craft and the like,

The “poor” won’t see a dime.

Bob Lyman
March 5, 2016 10:03 pm

The IMF study of “subsidies” to the oil and gas industry is badly flawed. Two of the largest alleged subsidies concern the lower prices for refined products paid by consumers in OPEC countries and the absence of a large carbon tax in most countries. In the first case, consumers in countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela pay relatively low prices for gasoline because governments control the price of crude oil and refuse to impose the punishing excise and sales taxes on refined oil products that we have become used to in industrialized countries. That is a “subsidy” to consumers, not producers. In the second case, an alleged environmental externality (that the IMF values arbitrarily highly) is assigned as a subsidy to producers. This is nonsense. Using the IMF methodology, for example, environmental groups are claiming that annual subsidies to the Canadian oil and gas industry is over $2 billion per year, a figure that cannot be justified based on the reporting by any government. It also fails to acknowledge that, over the period 2008 to 2012, the Canadian petroleum industry paid over $25 billion per year on average to federal and provincial governments in corporate income taxes, royalties and land payments. This propaganda is little more than a smokescreen to justify massive subsidies to the wind, solar and biomass industries.

Reply to  Bob Lyman
March 6, 2016 1:56 am

Alberto Zaragoza Comendador had a google blog where he analysed the categorization of fossil fuel subsidies in Spain according to the IMF and most of the “subsidies” turned out to be tax breaks. His astute conclusion was that the easiest way to eliminate the subsidies was the remove the taxes!
For some reason, Google killed his blog. This was a real pity as it had some really interesting (and entertaining) posts on Tesla Motors.

Reply to  Analitik
March 6, 2016 4:17 am

Thanks for the mention. I killed the blog as I didn’t really have time to keep it updated, correct mistakes, etc. Most of the serious analysis I did on Tesla is still available on Seeking Alpha (check out the articles on Supercharger accounting in particular). I kept blog content on my hard drive and may still get around to publishing or cleaning it up in the future… but there’s only so much time. If I ever get back to blogging I’ll try to write less and verify more!
The article you’re referring to is this:
The IMF’s report is a complete joke, though that was known before I wrote about it. My main contribution was debunking another report by the OECD that claimed Western countries were also subsidizing these fuels. It turned out that most of these ‘subsidies’ were tax breaks, yes, but not on the sales tax or the corporate income tax or anything like that, but on the HYDROCARBON tax!
In other words, maybe farming diesel had a sales tax of 21% plus 10c a liter in hydrocarbon tax, while automotive diesel had 21% + 30c a liter. The OECD would take the 20c-a-liter difference in the tax rates between these fuels and call it a subsidy. Obviously, according to OECD the way to eliminate subsidies, encourage efficiency, yadda yadda is to eliminate the hydrocarbon tax altogether.
Face, meet palm.

JJM Gommers
Reply to  Bob Lyman
March 6, 2016 2:50 am

About the externality of the costs for car accidents/road damage/congestion are considered as a subsidy and
should be contributed ot the supplier of the fossil fuel according to the IMF. However these costs are always there despite the type of the energy source and are specific for the vehicle.

Reply to  JJM Gommers
March 6, 2016 3:04 am

Because of the exponential increase better infrastructure, in sanitation, in cheap energy, better healthcare… people live longer.
The worst than we thought longer life causes exponential costs.
Is that an oil subsidy?

Reply to  JJM Gommers
March 6, 2016 11:43 am

And the amount of Gin&Tonic.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Bob Lyman
March 6, 2016 8:22 am

Why is it that any time I listen to the head of some powerful governmental organization, I feel like I’m reading a grade 6 book report! The level of intellect on display at the highest levels of power is truly terrifying.

Reply to  Bob Lyman
March 6, 2016 9:40 am

The biggest tragedy with green energy is that money and energy are being spent with nothing to show for it.
Take 2 examples: 1) Windmills, even after they start turning, cannot show a corresponding reduction in fossil fuel consumed by the grid. 2) Burning corn to produce ethanol converts one litre of diesel (or gas equivalent) into slightly LESS than one litre of ethanol (A few % of an acre of corn is also lost).

March 5, 2016 11:20 pm

Did you know that 1 cubic km can fit the entire human population. That is not even a drop on the bucket!

March 6, 2016 2:52 am

Could one be anyone more corrupt than Legarde? I doubt it.
The Green energy scam continues.
The IMF and World bank (which is a group of private banks) with the IMF people like Legarde immune from prosecution, it’s nothing but a mechanism for control.
The IMF recently destroyed Ukraine financially, pulled off a soft coup in Greece and further smashed the country and had the bits sold off.. World Bank loaned Ethiopia money and directed the government there to switch to more profitable crops besides food, which ended up killing many..
Two absolutely corrupt awful institutions.
Nothing out of their mouths should be believed.

March 6, 2016 4:09 am

Lagarde is one of the most reliably idiotic politicians on all things climate. Up there with Kerry and Figueres.
“Removing fossil fuel subsidies would go a long way to cutting consumption,”
Tell Yemen, which plunged into a civil war largely as a result of the IMF’s pressure to end subsidies. Or tell Qatar or any of the countries that actually subsidize these fuels.
“If subsidies were removed and carbon prices set properly now and taxed that would go a long way in addressing the climate change issues the world is facing.”
Europe has had cap and trade since 2005, and there are very few subsidies for fossil fuels (taxes are many times greater). So I suppose we’ve done our part and can forget about the issue.
Of course an actual price on carbon, i.e. a tax, has received support from many on the ‘skeptic’ side – but the IMF and other parasites would only accept such a tax if it did not put an end to the bajillion climate programs keeping them employed. They don’t see it as a solution, they see it as additional punishment.

March 6, 2016 4:43 am

The IMF has a long record that is very nasty.

Pat Paulsen
March 6, 2016 5:32 am

They have plans for our money that likely have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with taxing us to perdition, IMO.

March 6, 2016 6:50 am

The talk above about all we need is economic growth is fantasy. All western style economies are dead despite continued cash injections. Why do you think they want co2 tax to develop third world economies. Your all living in dead or rapidly dying economies. If your governments stop borrowing to fund to maintain the status quo it will get nasty real fast

Thomas Englert
Reply to  Kiwikid
March 6, 2016 9:45 am

The way to economic growth is NOT through increasing taxes. It’s not through government borrowing either. The people behind this push for increasing taxes on energy need to be slapped down hard.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Kiwikid
March 9, 2016 3:50 am

I bet you voted for Helen Clark.

March 6, 2016 7:02 am

“If subsidies were removed and carbon prices set properly now and taxed that would go a long way in addressing the climate change issues the world is facing.”

My God, Lagarde is literally insane.
Deductions are not subsidies. Subsidies have a specific meaning in government business. Fossil fuel companies do not receive subsidies, they are able to write off business expenses as all businesses are allowed to do. Renewable companies take advantage of the same deductions AND also receive massive subsidies. This is not what makes the lady insane, this just makes her either stupid or disingenuous.
What makes her insane is suggesting artificially increasing the cost of fossil fuels and then taxing those fuels is morally and practically required, when the only tangible effect would be creating an economic crisis for the poor and middle class. Her insanity is further exposed by her not using the term fossil fuels, but instead using “carbon”, the basis for all life on the planet. Perhaps her belief is that all life on the planet should be taxed simply for being a carbon based life form.

Reply to  Alx
March 6, 2016 11:51 am

In Basso Profundo.
I AM A CAR—–BON LIFE FORM. Danger,danger. Tax me. Tax me.

March 6, 2016 11:46 am

Speaking as a retired teacher of Economics I would have loved to have set this as question to my classes:
The Head of the IMF has said:
“Removing fossil fuel subsidies would go a long way to cutting consumption,” This statement was included in a speech on how to promote growth in the face of an aging population.
Discuss the usefulness of cutting consumption as an aid to promoting economic growth.
It would have been a useful way of opening children’s eyes to the danger of automatically assuming that people in powerful positions always talk sense.
(You can, of course promote economic growth by boosting investment, government expenditure and/or exports. But cutting consumption reduces the incentive to invest and reduces the amount that governments receive from taxes on consumer spending. So not the most sensible way of promoting growth. However. However. Stalin successfully promoted economic growth in the USSR by promoting investment in key industries. The result was that the population lived in the direst of circumstances. Maybe that’s the model that Ms Lagarde has in mind.)

J Calvert N(UK)
March 6, 2016 2:45 pm

Well, I didn’t vote for her!
(Did anyone?)

Reply to  J Calvert N(UK)
March 7, 2016 12:14 am

Was going to say the same thing. Did anyone in this country vote for her? I didn’t.

Reply to  J Calvert N(UK)
March 7, 2016 2:10 am

No one anywhere voted for her in her IMF capacity. She is also immune from prosecution, literally.
The IMF sent Greek journalists to the US to get trained up on how to spread fear in greece re the bailout\Austerity thing.
Literally the low life of humanity reside within the ranks of the IMF. They have the blood of many on their hands and no one can ever bring them to book for their crimes

March 7, 2016 4:12 am

Does the word dike mean anything?

Pat Paulsen
March 7, 2016 5:41 am

I don’t need a car, so I don’t drive anymore. Yet, Leo DiCapprio and the other greens love to fly everywhere, but why are they preaching to me instead of looking in a mirror? I’m already more green than they are by keeping my mouth shut and containing my own personal, precious CO2 levels. 😉

March 7, 2016 6:26 am

PJ O’Rourke once said that you could cut the budget for any government agency that is trying to analyze the world situation. All you would have to do is have someone look into where the IMF and World Bank is involved, and you’ll have riots in 6 months.

%d bloggers like this: