The World Bank Notices the Asian Coal Rush


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian claims that planned expansion of coal power across Asia is pushing the Paris Climate Agreement to the brink of collapse.

Plans for coal-fired power in Asia are ‘disaster for planet’ warns World Bank

Experts have offered stark warnings that proposed power plants in India, China, Vietnam and Indonesia would blow Paris climate deal if they move ahead.

Plans to build more coal-fired power plants in Asia would be a “disaster for the planet” and overwhelm the deal forged at Paris to fight climate change, the president of the World Bank said on Thursday.

In an unusually stark warning, the World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, noted that countries in south and south-east Asia were on track to build hundreds more coal-fired power plants in the next 20 years – despite promises made at Paris to cut greenhouse gas emissions and pivot to a clean energy future.

On their own, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam account for three-quarters of new coal-fired power plants expected to be built around the world in the next five years. In India alone about 300 million people live without access to electricity.

“If Vietnam goes forward with 40GW of coal, if the entire region implements the coal-based plans right now, I think we are finished,” Kim told a two-day gathering of government and corporate leaders in Washington, in a departure from his prepared remarks.

“That would spell disaster for us and our planet.”

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, is pushing hard for governments to formally join the agreement and bring it into force before Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017.

That would help protect the agreement from a future president – such as the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump – who denies or doubts that climate change is even occurring.

Read more:

Last year WUWT reported how, in the wake of the World Bank refusing to fund affordable energy, China and Japan were competing to supply funds for new coal plants. Japan even compounded the joke, by defining investment in coal as “climate finance”.

In response, the World Bank now seems to be asking the rising superpowers of the 21st century to please desist from their economic expansion plans, because they want to block the likely next President of the United States from enacting the will of the American people, by tearing up the Paris Climate Agreement.

Somehow I don’t think the World Bank is going to win this one.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 6, 2016 11:11 am

“Paris Climate Agreement to the brink of collapse”
The Paris climate agreement was on the brink of collapse before the ink was dry on the documents.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2016 12:38 pm

But of all the things that politics, science and environmentalism has done in the last 50 years, the IPCC’s agreements are amongst the most far-reaching, yet least bold. The problem, of course, is “teeth”.
There is no Cerberus, no fanged 3 headed dog to which all signatories must succor and heed.
I’m not much anti-ban-CO₂ as I am “don’t waste the public’s time and money with great shows having no substance”
CO₂ being bad? As you say, the plants love the stuff. But it is quite the experiment that we are playing with our one and only home planet. Let’s hope it staves off the next Ice Age.
There’s no winning this one by litigation and legislation.
There has to be a player with teeth.
And not the U.S. on its own.

Reply to  GoatGuy
May 6, 2016 1:14 pm

What experiment?
The planet has spent most of the last 3 billion years with CO2 levels that were 10 to 30 times greater than today.
The current dangerously low levels of CO2 were the experiment. Plant life barely survived. CO2 levels are merely going a small ways back towards what the planet would consider normal.

Reply to  GoatGuy
May 6, 2016 2:46 pm

I agree with MarkW. We are not experimenting. We are living according to our nature and there is nothing evil about us. We are part of the environment. We are meant to be here, and when we are in full swing, using oil and coal for cheap energy and living rich lives, we care for the forests and the animals and nature in general. Gang-Green now wants to trash the planet to save the planet and they are manipulating our guilt levers like crazy to get us to comply.
If I could have my way, I’d see people stop feeling guilty and start feeling proud. A healthy self-pride gets things done. Feeling worthless gets nothing done at all except a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. We’ve got to ditch the guilt.

Reply to  GoatGuy
May 6, 2016 4:00 pm

“a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth”
You forgot the bed wetting !!

Pat Frank
Reply to  GoatGuy
May 6, 2016 4:41 pm

Also, off-hand, I’d suppose that agriculture is a far larger “experiment” than adding a few hundred ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. We farm about 30% of all arable land, meaning it’s not the forest, field, and stream it would otherwise be. This had to radically change the evapo-transpiration of those regions.
Also, the extensive use of fire by paleo-humans removed large amounts of forest in favor of grassland; also a larger experiment than CO2 emissions.
If anything, adding CO2 to the atmosphere and causing earth to green up may be merely restoring the land surface back to the productivity it would have had without agriculture and paleo-fires.

Reply to  GoatGuy
May 6, 2016 7:18 pm

Climate lies upon lies flicing the nation with taxes upon taxes and destroying jobs and sending work out the nation.

Reply to  GoatGuy
May 6, 2016 8:07 pm

But it is quite the experiment that we are playing with our one and only home planet.
The only way to stop the green lying is to prove them wrong. We proved 400 PPM was ok.
The next step is to prove 500 PPM is ok.
We should treat their outrageous claims as a dare. Until making outrageous claims becomes reliably unproductive they will keep doing it.
Using the “precautionary principle” we should be spending as much on global warming as we do on something of similar risk – asteroid impacts – or a few 10s of millions a year.

Reply to  GoatGuy
May 10, 2016 8:06 am

Not to say pearl clutching.

george e. smith
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2016 3:26 pm

Hillary Trump, now competing with open arms for the West Virginia Coal Miner’s Union vote and declaring that they (she did) misspoke, when she said (unmisspoke) she would bankrupt the Coal Companies.
Funny how you can get the plum (Marie Antoinette Fruit) out of your big mouth long before the doo-doo gets up to your knees.

Will Nelson
Reply to  george e. smith
May 6, 2016 5:07 pm

Hillery says, for example, (misspoke) bankrupt the coal companies (unmisspoke). Not quite what you said George, but if you don’t copyright it I might steal it. Now just need a typeset character. Another good one is (evolving, unevolving).

Reply to  george e. smith
May 6, 2016 7:13 pm

Now that Hillary is up for the primary in West Virginia, all of the statements Hillary made regarding “putting coal mines and generation facilities out of business” are suddenly unspoken…
Basically when a coal miner snuck into one of Hillary’s greet the ‘vetted to extreme’ constituents and got to ask her a question during the Q&A.
The miner wanted to know why Hillary was planning to shut down coal mines and put workers into unemployment; Hillary’s response was that she didn’t state that. That Hillary’s statements regarding coal were taken ‘out of context’.
Hillary’s PR spokespeople issued dubious press releases soon afterward that Hillary mis-spoke, was mis-understood, and her statements are taken out of context, end of story.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  george e. smith
May 7, 2016 7:23 am

ATheoK – May 6, 2016 at 7:13 pm said:

Basically when a coal miner snuck into one of Hillary’s greet the ‘vetted to extreme’ constituents and got to ask her a question during the Q&A.

ATheoK, …… try again.
Me thinks that only a highly partisan “Hillary-loving” Democrat would attempt to provide her with such a phony CYA.
It was and still is, quite obvious to most anyone that resides in “coal country”……. that the coal miner in question was specifically chosen by Hillary’s “handlers” to ask her the exact question that he asked of her.
Hillary knew ahead of time that “specific” question was going to be asked ……. and she knew ahead of time how she was going to lie her way out of explaining her previous promise ….. to close the coal mines and put miners out of a job.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2016 3:56 pm

Right Mark. We all knew about the massive numbers of coal fired power plants planned or being built, well before Paris. There were several threads on here and other blogs about them. Just shows these other guys live in a bubble.
I read some where that from the day Obama signed his climate deal with the Chinese, a couple of years ago, there has been one new coal fired approved for construction or one has started construction every 2nd day in China alone.

Reply to  MarkW
May 7, 2016 5:19 am

The stench of propaganda is overwhelming!
The World Bank is not a bank, it’s one of the United Nations’ specialised agencies.
It consists of member countries, including China, India, Japan, Vietnam and Indonesia.
To get a whiff of the propaganda, try to imagine the president of a snooty business club making the public statement that its members* are profiting from its policies!
*Elites, not there subjects.

Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
May 7, 2016 5:28 am

*Ruling elites profit at the expense of THEIR subjects!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
May 9, 2016 7:56 am

Scott W
You say the WB is a UN agency. This is not and was never true. It is also not similar to the UN.
The WB is the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development. There are two competing organisations. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the new Chinese International Investment Bank. Japan has its own but it is more like a private investment bank than a development bank with many owners.
Also the WB is not a single institution with only one opinion. There are many rooms in that house. Different opinions are held in each of them.

Reply to  MarkW
May 7, 2016 8:34 am

Paris Climate Agreement to the brink of collapse

Well it was a non-binding agreement so the worst case scenario would see a non-binding collapse.
Of the 38,000 COP21 delegates, less than half were representing their country. The rest were representing UN agencies, charities, campaign groups, universities, companies and media organisations.
Japan comes in 21st on the list with 168 participants
India had 182 participants – one delegate for every seven million of its population.
Tuvalu had a delegation of 42 people – one for every 253 of its population.
Morocco – 439 delegates.
Interesting read:

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Raven
May 9, 2016 12:07 pm

Let it collapse. I feel no need to save it. The only thing of value emerging from this vast expense is the knowledge (and demonstration) that humanity can get together to solve large problems that cannot be solved by one nation or a few nations.
We could always have done that, but we have so little good practise to go on. The best effort so far was the League of Nations, and its shadow the UN. Maybe next time we will get it right. We learn the hard way it seems.
It would be more effective if we chose real threats to humanity like actual pollution. The lack of a proper system for fixing borders is going to bring more pointless wars. Even the lack of recognition that we are all legitimately here on this planet and no one is ‘going away’. In short, your neighbours have to be accommodated. There is a lot we can work on.
The concept of being a world citizen with rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties is important for progress. Developing an ‘enclave’ is not helpful in the long run. Enclave countries will just be overrun, often in the short term.

May 6, 2016 11:12 am

“That would spell disaster for us and our planet.”
I agree that it will spell disaster for them.
On the other hand plants the world over are rejoicing.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2016 12:36 pm

Having to pay the illegals undocumented dreamers to mow my lawn twice a week would be a disaster. Already I go away for three weeks, and return home to a vine-covered cottage that wasn’t vine-covered when I left.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2016 4:46 pm

It was just a misspelling, he meant
“That would spell disaster for us and our plans “…

Reply to  E.M.Smith
May 7, 2016 5:57 pm

Very true, Banks around the World are in deep Doo-Doo and are becoming desperate.
Example here,

John Robertson
May 6, 2016 11:13 am

Reality has caught their attention?
Never mind,I am sure a new shiny crisis will soon fill their attention span.
How can a “non binding” agreement collapse?
Besides that I thought the agreement ala Obama Bin Lying, was we in the west will voluntarily destroy our economy and the Chinese and Indians will act like practical people.
Or did I misunderstand, our planet saving preeners?

Reply to  John Robertson
May 6, 2016 6:09 pm

I think you got it about right.
The agreement is not binding on the United States, no matter what Obama does. Congress is the one that approves treaties, not the president.
The president can only issue executive orders and do administrative things within the Executive Branch, which the next president can undo with the stroke of a pen.
It seems the World Bank seems to think Obama can bind the U.S. to the treaty though, as that seems to be why they want to speed up the signing of the agreement, but they are dreaming because Obama does not have the authority to enter the U.S. into a binding agreement, without the consent of the Legislative Branch.

May 6, 2016 11:25 am

But, but, but… surely the “Paris Climate Deal” had stringent and enforceable penalties agreed to by all parties to avoid noncompliance, right?
You mean to tell me It didn’t!!!!!????
Oh, my… Warmageddon is unavoidable!!!! We’re doomed!!!

May 6, 2016 11:27 am

I have a feeling that one gang of officious kleptocrats will ignore the other gang of officious kleptocrats

May 6, 2016 11:37 am

Lets take another look at who is buying up all of coal companies they can…………. does the name George Soros ring a bell

Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2016 11:42 am

Oh noes! Not the Paris Agreement!
A moment of silence, please, while the world’s smallest violin plays mournfully.

May 6, 2016 11:48 am

Or maybe we could all just adapt to whatever climate change occurs? Just a thought.

Reply to  Trebla
May 6, 2016 12:04 pm

The only climate that needs adapting to is the political climate..

Reply to  Trebla
May 6, 2016 4:26 pm

You mean adapt like we’ve done since we started walking upright?
What a practical and novel idea.

Reply to  Trebla
May 7, 2016 10:16 am

Yep! I’m looking forward to “adapting” to a longer growing season, milder winters, better rainfall, higher yields and lower heating bills. Oh, the HORROR!!!! 😉

May 6, 2016 11:51 am

These nations MUST build coal to fuel their economies to pay back world bank loans :p

May 6, 2016 12:04 pm

…The S.C.A.M. is coming to an expensive end !

May 6, 2016 12:09 pm

Let me see if I get this right. The very countries that would benefit monetarily from rich nations chipping in to help developing countries mitigate climate change will use that money to vastly increase the emissions they are being paid to curtail by building thousands more coal fired plants.
Forrest Gardner, above, ingeniously says, “Follow the money.”

Reply to  Bob
May 6, 2016 12:15 pm

OOPS! I misspelled Mr Gardener’s name.

Reply to  Bob
May 7, 2016 10:17 am

The first thing Donald Trump needs to do, on his first day in office, is de-fund the United Nations. It’s long outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any.

Reply to  Goldrider
May 7, 2016 10:32 am

Goldrider commented: “… de-fund the United Nations. It’s long outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any….”
It was conceived with best intentions but quickly co-opted by Socialist/Marxist ideologists and they no longer hide that fact. When you look at all the tentacles of the UN it’s obvious they have long ago abandoned their intended role as an arbiter of world peace and aspire to governing the world. Agenda 21 is their manifesto. Agree, de-fund.

Reply to  Goldrider
May 7, 2016 11:02 am

markl is right. So is Goldrider.
Some background, for the young whippersnappers here (snapping my white suspenders and hiking my white belted pants up to the middle of my chest):
When the Korean War broke out in 1950, the UN was a new organization. The USSR regarded it as anti-Soviet, so they didn’t pay it much mind. As a result, they often boycotted UN meetings.
So when the Norks invaded the South, Russia had no representative in the emergency UN meeting. The result was that without Russia’s veto, the UN voted to oppose the Nork’s aggression.
So the united West fought the Norks and Red Chinese to a standstill. And the erstwhile Soviets learned a very painful lesson.
That lesson was not lost on them; they have never missed a single UN meeting ever since.
Furthermore, the Soviets set a long term plan in motion to infiltrate and turn the UN to their advantage. The KGB (now the FSB, but all the same playas) know human nature better than anyone (except maybe the Jesuits). They have been working covertly since 1950 on their plan to co-opt the UN.
Their plan has been amazingly successful. The UN is now effectively controlled by the FSB.
Never listen to the words of a politician. Rather, always watch their actions. That will tell you what they’re thinking, and what their intentions are.
The current UN is a hotbed of anti-American, anti-West sentiment. Most of the UN countries overtly hate us. It doesn’t matter that we shovel mountains of cash into their leaders’ pockets. They take the money, and they still hate us. And that easy money makes them salivate: they want more and more.
This situation can easily be fixed. Simply evict the UN from their US location in New York. Invite them to select another country, and who cares where? Then the US should follow up by withdrawing from the UN.
What would take its place? That’s easy: realpolitik. Those countries that support us would continue to get financial aid and other support. But any country that badmouths the US would be cut off without a cent.
The result would become immediately apparent: countries would fall all over themselves to be our friend. Money will do that when there’s a quid-pro-quo.
Who needs the UN anyway? What good are they? What wars have they prevented? The UN is nothing but a giant money sponge, and it does America and the West no good at all.
It’s time to jettison that worthless organization, STAT.

May 6, 2016 12:10 pm

Just for background on this, it was prior manipulation of the World Bank by Dear Leaders that resulted in re-configuring of development finance in the region to bypass them. The Climate Con did not work—again.

Johann Wundersamer
May 6, 2016 12:14 pm

“That would spell disaster for us and our planet.”
No problem, our planet can cope with.
They just hamper with their own planet.

Johann Wundersamer
May 6, 2016 12:28 pm

“Somehow I don’t think the World Bank is going to win this one.”
Since world bank never intentionally did any good to anyone, a retarding element in life ongoing, they’re happy unneeded.

May 6, 2016 12:41 pm

I’ve got a great idea!
Let’s send the complaint from the Maldives to India, China and Vietnam (the complaint asks for money to mitigate their presumed-but-unproven sea level rise)…
At least we know where 75%+ of the coal-fired power plant emissions come from.

Coeur de Lion
May 6, 2016 12:49 pm

Why is it that the Left hates poor people?

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
May 6, 2016 1:16 pm

How can it be that they hate poor people?
They work so hard to make more of them.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2016 2:49 pm

That’s just so they can have more people to hate. They LIKE to hate.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2016 8:17 pm

@ A.D. Everard. Yes, a peculiar mindset, built on hate, requiring poverty. All the while masquerading as the opposite. At an individual level the only motivation seems to be contempt for other people and the acquisition of prestige and power – by any means, duplicitous or not.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2016 8:22 pm

The deep humanity and personal integrity of J.S. Mill compared with the bile and personal hypocrisy of Marx says it all.

george e. smith
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
May 6, 2016 3:31 pm

Because there’s many more poor people, and the left just hates people (besides themselves).

Reply to  george e. smith
May 6, 2016 3:38 pm

They hate themselves, too.

Pop Piasa
May 6, 2016 12:55 pm

State-of-the-art coal power for the third world means affluence and infrastructure enhancements, the very recipe for reducing the birth rate. How blind are the bankers (et al) – to ignore this fact?
You would think the world bank would be anxious for private sector investment activity supported by governmental funding instead of doling out dollars to corrupt third world leaders in the name of “climate change”.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
May 7, 2016 10:22 am

These overeducated idiots have some pastoral vision that squatting in a rice paddy is “better” for “backward” people than living like the industrialized West. Probably got this idea smoking weed at summer camp in Maine, which is the closest they’ve ever been to “nature.” They forget a few little invariables like disease, malnutrition, infant and maternal mortality, and tribal wars tend to go right along with that scene.

May 6, 2016 12:56 pm

Kim says: “If Vietnam goes forward with 40GW of coal, if the entire region implements the coal-based plans right now, I think we are finished. That would spell disaster for us and our planet.”
No Kim, we are not. If you believe that coal-fired electrical plants will “finish” us, then the ethical response to prevent annihilation is war. Man up and call for war against these countries to prevent global CO2 genocide.

Reply to  tom
May 6, 2016 3:46 pm

call for war
we had to kill them to save them

Reply to  ferdberple
May 7, 2016 4:38 am

We could get by just killing 1B to 3B Asians, blacks and other people of color.
And by targeting the poor the UN can save those of us worth saving.
I wonder how that will play in New Delhi?
These Greenies are so smart.

Reply to  mikerestin
May 7, 2016 5:10 am

Need to kill 5-1/2 to 6 billion humans to get back to pre-industrial, pre-coal, 100% renewable (wood and plants) only, eco-greenie levels of CO2 production. That would eliminate Africa, South America, and most of Asia. Lots in Australia, Europe, and North America.
Then again, the only ones who will be around to decide who gets killed/starved to death/forced into concentration camps will be the only ones who decided NOT to restrict themselves to 100% renewables and Western-Liberal-socialist-eco-greenie policies. Like the ones in Asia who are now building their new coal plants.

May 6, 2016 12:57 pm

Examining the number of nuclear power plants that China currently has under construction (roughly 35 GW
of power), I’d say they are producing more new carbon free power capacity than any other country.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  arthur4563
May 6, 2016 6:32 pm

Of course arthur is correct about the number of new nukes in China but that is because China could not produce enough coal to meet its needs. It has nothing to do with the carbon content.

David A
Reply to  Retired Kit P
May 7, 2016 2:50 am

Yes, arthurs comment is missing more then 1/2 of the picture. China is exactly following the HISTORIC agreement they made with the O. What historic agreement was that?
China agreed to increasing their emissions however much they wish until 2030, and to a nonbinding flat lining of emission increase after that.
The O went around the world congratulating himself. The ever faithful praised him. And now this agreement “spells disaster for the planet.”
It’s is a funny old world.

May 6, 2016 1:11 pm

Good news comes by the ton, reality bites the warmist again, so sad!

May 6, 2016 1:32 pm

I believe the Asians view the Climate Change scam as “opportunity” laid at their feet. Look how it has increased their industry so far with promises of more to come. They are simply preparing and taking advantage of wealth redistribution.

Reply to  markl
May 7, 2016 10:23 am

China’s civilization has lasted over 5,000 years. For a reason!

May 6, 2016 1:46 pm

It is unfortunate that the Paris agreement may collapse, but at least the world will be able to afford to continue improving things. The only thing this useless propoganda would do, is re-distribute wealth to those who don’t want to work for it. Long live clean burning coal power generation! With todays technology, it can be cleaner than natural gas, and is far more reliable than bird beaters and solar.

May 6, 2016 2:24 pm

They did this to us all by causing a collapse in the coal industry, and coal pricing. Cheap coal, means more coal-fired plants get built in the less prosperous countries and energy needful countries. It’s just another way to transfer prosperity and wealth, but one they didn’t count on, didn’t expect, and didn’t want. Another example of the law of unintended consequences.

May 6, 2016 2:29 pm

It was known before the Paris Climate Agreement, it was known during the Paris Climate Agreement “negotiations” and it has been known since the Paris Climate Agreement……India and China are either building or planning to build over a thousand coal-powered electrical generation plants. Good for them. Nobody at the World Bank is qualified to administer a piggy bank.

Reply to  LEE
May 6, 2016 5:59 pm

Bringing electricity to three hundred million people now without it? And the world bank thinks this is a bad thing? The only way this makes sense is if Icke is right about the Reptoids. Go India!

Peter Morris
May 6, 2016 2:44 pm

I had to laugh at Kim’s “we’re all doomed!” remark.
I guess I shouldn’t laugh. But it would be really, really funny if these guys weren’t taken so seriously by so many.

Greg Cavanagh
May 6, 2016 2:49 pm

It sounds like they are contemplating going to ware with (China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam) to prevent them from destroying the earth in a global warming apocalypses.

May 6, 2016 3:14 pm

last i heard, the chinese were burning magic coal that was causing the pause.

May 6, 2016 3:59 pm

That would help protect the agreement from a future president – such as the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump
Did the head of the UN just stick his nose into American politics?
Don’t they have a rule against that?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 6, 2016 4:30 pm

Rules only apply to the little people.

May 6, 2016 3:59 pm

It almost sounds like the World Bank has got out of the banking business and into the CAGW business.
The World Bank I feel has often done more harm than good.

Reply to  mikebartnz
May 6, 2016 9:56 pm
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 6, 2016 10:28 pm

Quote *The World Bank’s official goal is the reduction of poverty*
They have probably caused more poverty in the way they make countries that get money via them change their agriculture to suit the market but not the people of that country.
That was a good post from years back David. 🙂

David A
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 7, 2016 3:05 am

Yes, good call David. Fortunately, as your comment pointed out, Russia, China, India, and Asia have no compulsion to capitulate to these UN and WB Blackbeards. Unfortunately your request for the US to retake long their long worn mantle as leader of the free world, did not happen, and the downward spiral is rolling along. As they said in Harry Potter, “clinch your bottoms, its going to be a bumpy ride.”

Peter Sable
May 6, 2016 6:12 pm

This is a disaster for the first world countries who are busy de-industrializing themselves by cranking the cost of power up to $0.30+/kWhr via green initiatives. If the Asian countries can produce power at $0.15/kwHr they will own the manufacturing market of the world (what they don’t already own, that is)

David A
Reply to  Peter Sable
May 7, 2016 3:06 am


May 6, 2016 7:41 pm

We are all aware of how terrible warmunistas are at simple math…

“…On their own, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam account for three-quarters of new coal-fired power plants expected to be built around the world in the next five years…”

Totaling China’s and India’s plans for new coal fired power plants amounts to a very impressive number. Given the GDP necessary to build power plants, there are not a lot of countries world wide that can build sufficient percentage of coal plants. i.e. unless England plans to purchase standby coal fired generators to replace those standby diesel generator farms.
That three quarters claim begins to sound like a rectally sourced alarm number meant to terrify carbon-phobics.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 6, 2016 7:48 pm

How many antiquated coal plants are China and India shutting down?

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
May 6, 2016 9:23 pm

What does that have to do with ‘new’ coal fired plants?

May 6, 2016 8:11 pm

‘Plans to build more coal-fired power plants in Asia would be a “disaster for the planet” and overwhelm the deal forged at Paris ‘
And I thought forging was an indictable offence.

Dr. Strangelove
May 6, 2016 8:49 pm

“According to John Roome, the Bank’s senior climate change official, if all of those plants are built it will blow the world’s efforts, enshrined at Paris, to hold warming to 2C.”
Strange. It seems the world had already warmed by 1.5 C since 1750 and natural temperature variability in 1750-1800 was as much as plus or minus 2 C in 50 years. To attain 2 C warming since 1750, They have to limit warming to 0.5 C for 100 years (2000-2100) It is almost certain the world will warm or cool by that much without man’s intervention. The Paris agreement is wishful thinking.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 6, 2016 11:11 pm

Coal combustion may even cause global cooling. Coal power plants are the largest man-made source of sulfur dioxide, an aerosol with negative radiative forcing (cooling effect) According to IPCC-AR4, man-made aerosol has greater radiative forcing (-2.2 W/m^2) than CO2 (+1.66 W/m^2) Hence the cooling effect of aerosol is greater than the warming effect of CO2

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 6, 2016 11:36 pm

Correction: The comparison must include the max. uncertainty range.
Total aerosol = -2.7 W/m^2
CO2 = +1.83 W/m^2
It’s possible aerosol trumps CO2

David A
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 7, 2016 3:17 am

The coal fired power plants being built today will be greatly reducing any particulates. These nations will be getting aid (CO2 credits) from the west for some of these coal plants replacing older particulate producing coal plants. (Something they should be doing on their own for their own people.) Most of the planned power plants are not replacements however, which will aid in greening the world, and producing more O2, for those inclined to worry about the latest disaster of the day prediction.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  David A
May 7, 2016 5:39 am

When Mt. Pinatubo erupted, it ejected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and cooled global temperature by 0.5 C in 1991-93. China alone emits 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide every year. That’s equivalent to three Pinatubo eruptions every two years.

May 7, 2016 12:44 am

“Experts have offered stark warnings that proposed power plants in India, China, Vietnam and Indonesia would blow Paris climate deal if they move ahead.”
I cannot imagine how a person can be an ‘expert’ and not be aware that the Paris Agreement exempts developing countries from measures that would impair advances in their economic development,
Some may believe that China (for example) can prosper while the West commits economic suicide. But such a view fails to take account of the dependence of China upon Western markets.
The modern Green-Luddite movement threatens both Western and Eastern nations.
The most damaging consequence of the coming backlash against the Greens may be the rise of neo-fascism among the unemployed both in Europe and the US. This process may take quite a while to develop, but the persistent effort to drive up energy prices must result in reducing the demand for goods and services. That is the objective: to deindustrialize. Deindustrialization means more unemployment. This cannot happen without political consequences.
Anybody who says that the rise of Mr Trump shows this is about to happen should read some history books.
As we used to say, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet”

David A
Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
May 7, 2016 3:21 am

I agree with much of your comment, but few have been more fascist then the current POTUS.

May 7, 2016 2:29 am

This is absolutely comical.
When loony leftists negotiated the Paris Climate Treaty, they didn’t include ANY penalty provisions against countries for noncompliance…
Accordingly, China (who thinks CAGW is a scam) is rapidly INCREASING their coal plant facilities and rapidly increasing their CO2 emissions.
Here’s where the magic kicks in….The more CO2 China emits, the more money Western countries will waste to offset China’s growing CO2 emissions. Moreover, this makes Western goods even more uncompetitive, leading more Western corporations to move their production facilities to China, where CO2 regulations don’t exist!!
But here is the best part…. China is developing Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (a technology ironically discovered in the US, and GIVEN for free to China) that will eventually replace all of China’s coal-fired plants starting from 2025, and these MSRs will produce unlimited amounts of energy that’s 50% cheaper than coal-fired plants, and 10 TIMES cheaper than Western electricity rates, that skyrocketed after the West built expensive wind and solar facilities….
Accordingly, after China’s Thorium MSR rollout begins, a SECOND wave of Western industry will move to China to take advantage of unlimited MSR power that’s 10 TIMES cheaper than the West…
I hope Trump is aware of what China is doing…. At least Trump thinks CAGW is scam that needs to end…
We’ll see.

May 7, 2016 3:31 am

‘Enshrined’, eh? What he just said!

May 7, 2016 6:04 am

Yeah, right. We always consult our bankers about climatology issues.

May 7, 2016 6:11 am

Environmentalists are so dense when it comes to solutions, just as they are when it comes to problems.
How in the world any one who prizes nature can be in favor of windmills rather destroys any arguments they put forth. Windmills are about as obnoxious (and deadly) and land-grabbing a means of producing unreliable power as can be imagined. The fact that these folks know nothing about energy technology is
plain to see in their championed alternatives, which truly suck. Anyone with even a smal interest in energy technology knows that moltenn salt reactors are the solution that can satisfy everyone, except, most likely, greenies, who don’t abide by any logic, only rabid emotionalism and ethical elitism. Greenies get my vote as the dumbest of the dumb.

Reply to  arthur4563
May 7, 2016 8:09 am

“Environmentalists are so dense when it comes to solutions, just as they are when it comes to problems.”
I’d try asking them, “How many Windmills does it take to make just 1 Windmill or how long would it take?,” but they’d have absolutely no idea what the question even means. But except for the ad hominems, it would likely shut them up, since the grammar/arrangement of words is not in their lexicon of “correct” noises and appearances, etc..
Once @ Greenpeace I stated that Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change was Scientifically Falsified because of its [100%] Prediction Failure. A woman responded by asking me if English was my first language because she couldn’t understand anything I said, and she even backed up her ‘cred’ by adding that she was an “Ivy League Graduate”. So I tried simply explaining how this science thing works. She did not re-appear.

May 7, 2016 7:02 am

Funny, is it not, that the eco-marxists want to convince the public that all fossil fuels receive massive state subsidies?
And yet the countries that produce coal and use coal in the greatest quantities are, in general, getting rich in the process. In other words, they are, often, the ones experiencing the highest rates of economic growth.
Or filling up their sovereign wealth funds, or buying up all the world’s gold.
There is an obvious reason why China has so far expanded coal consumption.
Coal is cheap to mine and cheap to buy and produces the most competitively priced electricity in the world.
There is no competing source of energy in terms of price.
China is only interested in out-competing the rest of the industrial world in terms of low cost production.
And they have basically succeeded.
The fact that they have built a single 22GW hydro-electric dam, tells us that big hydro is also cheap.
And the fact that they are now expanding to about 50GW capacity of solar P.V. must also tell us something important about the cost of solar P.V. in China.
Erecting 50GW installed capacity is not something that you do for show.
I’m pretty convinced that if China does something then we can assume that there is a net profit involved.
And not a net subsidy.
They are not idiots like the politicians of the E.U. socialist nightmare, where subsidized everything is destroying market efficiency and bankrupting us in the process.
In the morass of E.U. tariffs and subsidies we have totally lost contact with the real cost of anything.
To the point where we are now placing punitive tariffs of Chinese solar panels.
To the point where we can not be critical of Russia, because we so desperately need their cheap gas.
Meanwhile, we point the finger at the producers and users of fossil fuels and accuse them of subsidizing their industries.
It all seems like a bad joke really.

May 7, 2016 8:24 am

When the Kyoto Accords were established, the UNFCCC excluded Countries containing ~5 Billion of the world’s ~6.5 Billion people from having to agree to follow them. Why? Because:
1] The UN knew these Countries wouldn’t follow the Accords.
2] The UN didn’t believe its own IPCC “science”.

May 7, 2016 9:26 am

Time to invest in DLNG (liquid nat. gas shipping), KOL (coal), MO (tobacco) and URA (uranium)!
Ya. 🙂

Berényi Péter
May 7, 2016 12:22 pm

In an unusually stark warning, the World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, noted that […] if the entire region implements the coal-based plans right now, I think we are finished

Jim Yong Kim MD, PhD, 12th President incumbent of the World Bank since July 1, 2012 is a physician and anthropologist, so he must be an expert on both financial and climate issues. Auch… neither.
But the most interesting part of his utterance is that “we”. He, as the President of the World Bank is obviously not authorized to speak in the name of mankind, much less the “planet”. As a self appointed speaker in the role of a private citizen he could do that, of course, but he failed miserably to make that fine distinction. Therefore we are forced to assume, that by “we” he has meant the World Bank crowd.
It makes sense. The World Bank has cut off funding for coal in 2013. If, in spite of this move, economic development in south and south-east Asia goes on unimpeded as they are able to find alternative financial resources, the World Bank is finished indeed. It is finished, because it failed its mission, which is to “End extreme poverty within a generation and boost shared prosperity.”, while others on the market took over this role. After this the institution should be defunded and dissolved, in other words… finished. So Jim Yong Kim MD, PhD is kinda right.

May 8, 2016 12:19 am

It leaves one wondering whether the interest of the “World Bank” is Global Prosperity or Global Control.

May 8, 2016 4:34 am

Thanks Eric. I used this story for a blog post, including stories where the WB is not lending for coal plants in India and Myanmar. Then China’s AIIB will be happy to lend to more developing Asian countries’ coal plants,

May 8, 2016 5:01 am

Al the forests, all the farmland, all the gardens in the world are clapping their hands with glee. More CO2 to better satisfy our needs.

David Fotheringham
May 8, 2016 5:04 am

I moved to Asia last summer. The Prime Minister is already in line with his hand out for Western wealth to help us “go green.” Most of the money will end up in his pocket. That’s what happens with all the billions Western countries foolishly send him.

%d bloggers like this: