Paris Agreement Fan Laments Massive Fossil Fuel Powered Industrialisation in Bangladesh

Eiffel Tower, Paris. Bangladeshi School Children, Sakibnb [CC BY-SA 4.0], from Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Greens attacking Bangladeshis for trying to build a better future for their children.

From Paris to Bangladesh, how the climate change accord is imploding

By Divya Rajagopal

The onslaught of a new power plant on the fragile ecology of the Sunderbans is fresh proof of the futility of climate reforms. A ground report from ET.

Until two years ago, 28-year-old Sajjad Hossain Tuhin, a student of forestry, would walk up to the banks of the River Rupsa in Khulna, Bangladesh, to capture the moment of dusk, when the setting sun left the sky lit up like fireworks. In romantic Bengali literature, it is described as the moment to catch a glimpse of a new bride. But Tuhin doesn’t do this anymore. The sun now sets behind the boundary of an upcoming LNG power plant. The banks of the Rupsa are astir with vehicles ferrying rocks and cement to speed up the completion of the plant that will fire up Bangladesh’s economic growth.

At Rampal, a village 14km off the Sundarban forests, four-lane roads are being dug up by construction lorries to make way for a 1,350MW power plant, a joint venture under the Bangladesh India Friendship Project. Linked to the Mongla port, Rampal is expected to light up the entire upcoming industrial belt around the region, and holds the key to Bangladesh’s leap out of the LDC group. It is also a strategic investment for India as it strives to keep its influence intact — and immune from China — with its closest ally in the subcontinent.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are convinced the power plant will destroy the pristine ecology of the Sundarban mangroves, which act as a natural cover against the frequent cyclones and flooding that the Bay of Bengal brings. A drive from Mongla port to Rampal reveals why the environmentalists are edgy. On one side are lush green paddy fields, mangroves, and banana trees that are distinct to the Sundarban ecology. On the other, are giant gas cylinders and cement factories eating up the green cover.

Read more (paywalled):

When I read articles like this – how could anyone with an ounce of humanity express outrage that the people of Bangladesh are trying to build a better future for their children? Who gives a stuff about a bunch of Mangroves, when human lives are at stake?

Only a green could attack the economic efforts of some of the poorest people in the world, and think they are doing the right thing.

Update (EW): The original link stopped working (and contained a typo anyway), but Steve Case found a working link, unfortunately now paywalled.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 19, 2019 6:11 am

Some perspective is required here, what percentage of the mangroves is being replaced by the power plant? Probably a tiny insignificant percentage, but heck “greens” have to eat, so they peddle their wares regardless, and the useless MSM gives them a free pass.

Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2019 6:22 am

The Sundarbans are six times the size of Greater London, located on a river delta, and is crawling with tigers, somehow I doubt that a power station is going to have a significant impact, and any impact is likely positive, as many people will no longer need to get eaten by tigers as they scratched a living from the forest.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2019 9:10 am

My god man! Think of the Tigers? They’ll have to use the McDonald’s drive through now!

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 19, 2019 1:15 pm

Jeff Alberts

Judging by the current vegan campaigns in the UK just now (the latest promoted by a former glamour model and her multi billionaire husband, who like travelling the world on their £20m private jet) the Tigers won’t be served unless they order vegetables.

Good excuse to feed them greens!

Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2019 11:18 am

Greens are quite happy to utilise Bangladesh as a poster child of a population under threat from rising sea levels ( despite 90% “sea rise” there being land sinkage and nothing to do with “global warming.”)

but when it comes to have a “clean” LNG power station to drag them up a notch out of poverty … Oh No! We can’t have that.

While that plant may significantly improve live in this ruin of a country, it will not make on iota of difference “climate” in a million years. Total hypocrisy, they really show how deranged and inhuman they are with this.

Reply to  climanrecon
January 20, 2019 4:18 am

if theyre as smart as they could be, theyll leave as much mangrove as they can and run the warm discharge waters into either hydroponics or some other land use.
the issue with mangroves being trashed is real a lot of migratory birds rely on them and they DO help hold land together. theyre stinky and buggy but they do serve a purpose

Reply to  climanrecon
January 19, 2019 9:50 am

The implication is that the locals CANNOT have BOTH an LNG power plant … and … mangroves. Rubbish. I’ll tell you what they really cannot have … is mangroves and a forest of wind turbines. Now THAT would despoil the view

Reply to  Kenji
January 19, 2019 1:36 pm

I visited Hunterston Nuclear Power station in Scotland when I was a kid.

The cooling water from it was pumped into the Firth of Clyde.

One of the visitor attractions was to see the truly mahoosive fish which flourished in the warm water around the station.

That was around 1973 or so and the place was opened in 1964. So a little exercise in raising sea temperatures over a short, nine year period proved beneficial to aquatic life, brought employment to the area, maintained a stable grid, and never suffered a major accident before it was decommissioned in 1990.

Scotland has some of the most beautiful countryside in the world and, OK, it wasn’t ideal to have a power station built on the banks of the Firth, but drive for five minutes in any direction and you would not know it existed.

Travel past it by ship, ferry or boat and one marvelled at it’s sheer insignificance in the landscape it was situated. Yet it provided thousands of people with cheap, reliable electricity 24/7/365.

Travel through Scotland now and one marvels at the sheer destruction of a pristine, wild landscape littered with wind turbines that provide intermittent, non reliable electricity for a few thousand people, for a few days of the year.

The green blob is a societal cancer.

Reply to  HotScot
January 19, 2019 4:14 pm

So sad to hear, mate. Truly awful. I had so looked forward to a trip to my mothers peoples homeland … stark pristine and gorgeous.

I took a cross country trip several years back and drove west out of Jackson Hole WY (where I have a relative … yes, it IS the playground of Billionaires) … as I am crossing Idaho through beautiful farming valleys with snow capped mountain vistas … ugh … I come upon the biggest, ugliest, “wind farm” I have ever seen. Straight from beautiful landscapes, most of which had been “manipulated by man” with crops, livestock that still maintained the breathtaking beauty of the land … to these manmade contraptions that dominated and obscured the landscape in the most hideous way. How such an installation can EVER be sanctioned by an “environmentalist” is beyond me. And what’s worse, is that when the rotors stop spinning, one by one, they won’t be repaired (too expensive … no more subsidy $$) and they’ll sit idle … rusting and despoiling the environment. How do I know this? Well the exact same thing happened to a local Bay Area “wind farm” on Altimont Pass (yes … THAT Altimont). More than half of those blades have not been spinning for DECADES … yet we all get to “enjoy” the vista they provide as idle relics of the 1970’s. Seems as though the Altimont Pass is the scene of multiple horrors over the years.

Phil R
Reply to  Kenji
January 19, 2019 6:36 pm

I had the opportunity to visit that part of the country (Jackson hole, Grand Tetons, Southern Idaho, etc.) a couple times back in the late 1970’s. Beautiful, loved it, would love to go back,except I would hate to go back to see the area destroyed by windmills. 🙁

Thomas Dobson
January 19, 2019 6:11 am

These are the same people that will scream “racism” because we would rather they develop their own country, than have then come here. They are ideologs, possessed by their Ideology. Their arguments are those of emotion and passion. Dangerous, delusional and the antithesis of reason, there is no way to enlighten them until they throw off their addiction. It gives them an endorphin rush when they pat themselves on the back for “ saving the earth” . And they vote. That’s how democrats and liberals get elected.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Thomas Dobson
January 19, 2019 9:11 am

“They are ideologs”

Is that what you put in the fireplace to clean the chimney? Oh, you meant ideologues.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 19, 2019 11:29 am

I believe Thomas was wryly implying their ideas are wooden … nice wordplay *snicker*

Reply to  Kenji
January 19, 2019 11:36 am

They are block heads.

Steve O
Reply to  Kenji
January 21, 2019 4:39 am

I might add “idealogs” to my personal lexicon.

TG McCoy
Reply to  Thomas Dobson
January 19, 2019 11:20 am

The Greenies biggets fear is: Healthy .Happy. Prosperous.
Dark- skinned people..’
I say this as one who had a cousin sterilized for the crime of “Native while fertile” -at 12..
Can’t have those people indigent and drunk.
She is neither..

Tom Halla
January 19, 2019 6:13 am

It is that the green blob thinks most people should be either dead, or peons. Paul Ehrich and his followers expressed the basic ethos of the movement.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 19, 2019 7:29 am

Environmentalism is another way of saying Marxism, the terms can be used interchangeably.

Reply to  Klem
January 19, 2019 10:07 am

Thanos is a rabid Environmentalist but at least he had the conviction to murder the only thing he loved in the Universe – his adopted daughter.

Until the politicians and so-called climate scientists come to terms with that in the final interation of achieving their goal of pre-industrial levels of CO2 emissions requires the elimination of at least 5.8 billion souls we will continue to have this fight.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 19, 2019 8:07 am

The left accuses the right of being heartless. They say we should think of the grandchildren. At the same time their proposed policies condemn the third world to grinding poverty.

Fossil fuels lifted the first world from grinding poverty. The third world is now similarly being lifted from grinding poverty. Of course the left doesn’t want people to hear the good news. link

The left loves theory and by their theory, they are trying to make the world a better place. Viewed in the light of cold reality, the left is doing anything but making the world a better place. They are actually the heartless ones.

Reply to  commieBob
January 19, 2019 11:26 am

The arrogant, elitist, eco-Westerners … HAVE … everything. Every benefit of an industrialized, technological society … all powered by (primarily) fossil fuels. Because they HAVE everything … they imagine LESS would be somehow “better”, more “noble”. Funny thing is that all the 3rd worlders who have NOTHING … would dearly love to HAVE a tiny fraction of what the tone deaf eco-Westerners take for granted. Not to worry, the eco-Westerners will condescendingly TELL these poor natives what’s “best for them”.

R Shearer
Reply to  commieBob
January 19, 2019 1:56 pm


January 19, 2019 6:20 am

Those who lament the modernization of Bangladesh are free to adopt their current living conditions for themselves. Al Gore, DiCrapio, Weepy Bill, that goes double for you.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
January 19, 2019 6:42 pm

It seems a majority Californians love Dark Green only, so why not let them swap places with an equal number of Bangladeshis? They will get a wetter so more attractive – warm – climate in return. Lots of cheap labor “refugees” around too !

steve case
January 19, 2019 6:20 am
January 19, 2019 6:27 am

“how could anyone with an ounce of humanity express outrage that the people of Bangladesh are trying to build a better future for their children”

Because they are friends of the earth… and enemies of mankind.

January 19, 2019 6:33 am

“Until two years ago, 28-year-old Sajjad Hossain Tuhin, a student of forestry, would walk up to the banks of the River Rupsa in Khulna, Bangladesh, to capture the moment of dusk, when the setting sun left the sky lit up like fireworks. In romantic Bengali literature, it is described as the moment to catch a glimpse of a new bride. But Tuhin doesn’t do this anymore. The sun now sets behind the boundary of an upcoming LNG power plant”

Nice poetry sir but BD needs electricity more than it need poetry and if you don’t mind reading plain old prose take a look at the UNFCCC. It says that BD is a nonAnnex country with no climate action obligation and allowed to increase emissions for economic growth.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 19, 2019 8:30 am

Couldn’t Sajjad walk up the banks of the River Rupsa a few hundred yards upstream or down?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
January 19, 2019 9:13 am

My thoughts exactly, MarkW.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 19, 2019 9:23 am

What was left out of the poetic image were the piles of rotting trash, discarded refuse, and broken items Sajjad had to wade through and around to stand to admire the setting sun.

paul courtney
January 19, 2019 6:41 am

I recall R. Reagan saying nothing was more frightening to hear than the words, “I’m from the federal gov’t and I’m here to help.” Likewise, must scare the hell outta third world folks to hear “I’m an environmentalist and I’m here to help.” Greens love to say that the significance of Paris was not its direct result (nil) but the fact that all nations came together blah blah blah. A careful read of this article couldn’t make it more clear- Greens got “all nations to come together to prevent third world development. Because third world folks don’t know what’s good for them, and Greens do.

January 19, 2019 6:41 am

“It is also a strategic investment for India as it strives to keep its influence intact — and immune from China — with its closest ally in the subcontinent.”

I would support it for this reason alone, although for all the other reasons too. This is an opportunity for India and Bangladesh to work cooperatively together in their own region without China muddying up the waters with their debt trap philosophy, similar to what is going on in Sri Lanka and Pakistan with China in their backyard.

If Sajjad Hossain really wants to see a sunset, he should be able to still walk a bit further along the River where the power plant won’t block his view. That shouldn’t be grounds anyway for blocking a new power plant from being built that will bring additional multipliers to the local economy.

January 19, 2019 6:53 am

For reliable power nothing could be cleaner for the environment than LNG (except piped NG). Yet the greens still complain.

It’s interesting to watch the greens protest NG pipelines in the US. They are so ignorant they think NG leaking from a pipeline underneath a river can pollute the water.

January 19, 2019 6:57 am

Seriously, what a nonsense article – weepy, foolish, selfish and uninformed.

This nonsense is standard fare for far-left national news organizations like the CBC, the BBC and the ABC, among others, typically read by a female announcer with a look of dreadful regret etched on her imbecilic face.

A summary of the article would read: “Let poor people stay poor, they don’t deserve what we already have.”

The appropriate response to this selfish nonsense is unprintable.

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 19, 2019 7:02 am

Indeed. White privileged man and women telling those from the sub-continent that they can’t provide for their children in the way the sahibs do. Neo-colonialism at its worst.

January 19, 2019 7:04 am

Notice how these greenies have no objections to giant, almost useless windmills (see recent comprehensive study of windfarms and the fraud their proponents have committed with their promised economics).
A power plant of this size (1350MW) runs at near 100% capacity usually, as opposed to the average capacity
of large on shore wind turbines (2.5 to 3 MW nameplate capacity yields average capacity of roughly 0.5 to 0.7 MW, call it 0.6MW) which means you need 2250 turbines, which also requires a reliable power plant for backup, and 50 acres per megawatt (nameplate capacity) or 112,500 acres (175 square miles) for the turbines. Yeah, right, that ugly LNG plant sure ruins the view of those fifty people (of course you’ll need a LNG plant for backup power for all those turbines).
Someone needs to ask the author of this nonsensical pap how these people are going to build a natural looking power system. And where is YOUR natural looking power system, by the way?

Dave Ward
Reply to  kent beuchert
January 19, 2019 9:39 am

“Which also requires a reliable power plant for backup”

Exactly, so even if a bunch of wind turbines were built (think of the Tigers!), BD would STILL need this plant as backup. Or, maybe, just let them go back to the dark ages when nature doesn’t co-operate…

Jim Whelan
January 19, 2019 7:21 am

Articles like this are background evidence that C)2 emissions and “climate change” do not hurt the poor the most and that the alarmist hand-wringing over “the poor” is nothing but more hot air.

January 19, 2019 7:25 am

I imagine rural Tennesseans in the 1930’s were delighted and amazed when the Tennessee Valley Authority brought electricity to their homes. So now Bangladeshis will experience the same thing, flipping a light switch for the first time. BRAVO!

Dave Ward
Reply to  Tommyboy
January 19, 2019 9:43 am

“Flipping a light switch for the first time”

What about those of us in the UK, who will soon have to get used to flipping the switch and staying in the dark…

Richard Hood
January 19, 2019 7:35 am

For anyone that feels passion for the people in Bangladesh, They could install the ZENGCOM™¹ (Zero Emissions Natural Gas Combustion) Process, and only the banana trees required to build the plant will be destroyed. This will start a trend and every natural gas fired power plant in the world will want the ZENGCOM™¹ Process. The cost, according to an experienced cost estimator, would be 1.5-2.0 times the cost of their existing, or soon to exist atmospheric natural gas combustor.

Reply to  Richard Hood
January 19, 2019 8:33 am

Why on earth would any sane person want to double the cost of their electricity in order emit less of a gas that is good for the environment?

mike the morlock
Reply to  Richard Hood
January 19, 2019 1:47 pm

Richard Hood January 19, 2019 at 7:35 am
ZENGCOM™¹ No under no circumstances should this system be substituted. Instead a “Emissions” line should be carefully placed into the mangroves so they benefit from the CO2


Steve O
January 19, 2019 7:35 am

Just what do greenies think that poor countries in hot climates are going to do with the climate money promised them? They’re going to build power plants to power the air conditioning units that they’re going buy. IF we really are facing doom, then why is anyone talking about funding that? How much will emissions increase for every dollar sent to Africa? How does that compare with the emissions mitigated for each dollar spent on a windmill? And why not just do neither and come out ahead?

Reply to  Steve O
January 19, 2019 8:35 am

Poor people aren’t getting the climate money. The leaders of the country are, and they will do what they have always done. Build more mansions for themselves and take expensive vacations using the money.
The poor people won’t see a penny of that money.

Steve O
Reply to  MarkW
January 21, 2019 4:43 am

Given that recipients are too corrupt to have functioning economies of their own, what you say is true to the maximum extent that it can be true. But with the amounts of transfers that people are talking about, there’s no way they could skim off everything.

Robert W. Turner
January 19, 2019 7:38 am

Whoa, that must be one big LNG plant if the setting sun in Bangladesh is eclipsed by it anywhere you go. Or, does this demonstrate the futility of these climate cultists, unable to step 5′ to the left or right to get a view?

Reply to  Robert W. Turner
January 19, 2019 8:35 am

Leftists always expect other people to do the work so that they can have what they want.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
January 19, 2019 9:18 am

My question is: Will the plant survive the seasonal flooding? And will it survive the occasional catastrophic flooding that always has happened there? I can only assume they’re building it high enough, and with seawall protection.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 19, 2019 10:07 am

Google Earth is your friend.

Reply to  Robert W. Turner
January 20, 2019 5:55 am

The nearest I got to Khulna was Chalna (probably located at ‘Mongla’), the port some miles down river. On either bank was thick jungle. No one in their senses would walk or try to walk in that jungle. Snakes, as well as tigers. Anyone walking there would soon be dead.

About the only way to have the setting sun blocked by the LPG gas terminal would be if you were in wa small boat in the river!

I have checked with Google Maps – which I am assured is accurate. Rampal is on the east side of the Rupsa – or possibly the Pussur – River, and is about 11 km from the river bank. Much closer to the river is the Rampal Coal Based Power Project, (also known as the Maitree Super Thermal Power Project) about 1.5 km from the river. In the vicinity is the WTP @ rampal power plant by Ashora.

The ‘G Gas’ LPG plant is on the west bank of the Pussur (or Rupsa) river at the northern point of an island where a distributary takes off to the west. Across the other side of the distributary is the town of Chalna. We did not see the town when I was there so presumably we anchored at Mongla, this was due to the holding ground at Khulna being unsatisfactory. Our cargo – raw hjust and gunny bags – was brought down to us in lighters. Certainly on the east bank of the river then it was think jungle – now on the east bank there is a major industrial area, from the BNS naval base down stream, with oil and LNG terminals, cement mills, and a container port.

This article is definitely of the “Ho Humm” sort.

January 19, 2019 7:55 am

“Who gives a stuff about a bunch of Mangroves, when human lives are at stake?”

Eric, that’s a very crass statement !

It’s a Cyclone area, without the Mangroves the soil washes away so less land to farm, the fish have nowhere to spawn = no food…
so humans move to the comfort of the city’s where they can have the benefit of living in slums on rubbish tips, urban pollution, drink & wash in fresh sewage water & enjoy the pleasures of dysentery;

That’s “who gives a stuff about a bunch of Mangroves”.

With proper thought & planning you can have both energy & farmland, but without the protection of Mangroves you will lose both.

Robert W. Turner
January 19, 2019 8:01 am

Google street view can take you to this exact river to see the thatch and sheet metal roofed shacks.

And it appears that the majority of the nation’s forests in this region have been replaced with rice patties. As LNG plants and other modern industries move in then the economy can diversify, less people will be required to work on farms and instead go on to receive educations, yields per acre will increase and allow more land to revert back to nature, and quality of life as well as life expectancy will increase.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
January 19, 2019 9:19 am

” replaced with rice patties.”

Can you grill those? Oh you meant rice paddies.

January 19, 2019 8:02 am

The problem outlined has one real solution, globalization regulation and anti-conception.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  malkom700
January 19, 2019 9:32 am

You first . Retroactively .
Oh … that’s for OTHER people …those that don’t deserve to live , right ??

January 19, 2019 8:08 am

If Bangladesh is going to be buried by sea level rise, they’ll need energy to build all their buildings on pylons, like in the Jetsons.

John the Econ
January 19, 2019 8:17 am

Progressives trying to keep the third world poor and dependant, like they are supposed to be.

Remember when Obama went to Africa to tell young Africans not to bother dreaming of cars, nice homes, and air conditioning? Then he got back in the world’s most expensive private jet to come home for another golf date.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John the Econ
January 19, 2019 9:22 am

“Remember when Obama went to Africa to tell young Africans not to bother dreaming of cars, nice homes, and air conditioning?”

I don’t remember. Do you have a link?

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 19, 2019 10:58 am

Here is a youtube with the talk. Not exactly the same tone or context as mentioned here, but still useful for understanding what was said.

Reply to  Steven Fraser
January 19, 2019 3:49 pm

In this speech, he says “If everyone has a big car, and everyone has air conditioning, and everyone has a big house, then … … … ah … … the world’s gonna boil over”

You can’t get stupider than that

No way.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steven Fraser
January 20, 2019 8:13 am

Thanks Steven.

JLC of Perth
Reply to  John the Econ
January 19, 2019 11:19 pm

I remember. I am Australian and I was enraged by that speech. I can imagine how the Africans felt.

January 19, 2019 8:20 am

How much forest/farm land would be swallowed up for the wind mills/solar plants trying to produce the same power?

Patrick MJD
January 19, 2019 8:47 am

In 2005 the Ethiopian Govn’t shutdown all mobile networks in the fear of growing anti-Govn’t support with citizens. Haiti residents who revolted with fuel price hikes, after the big quake, also oppressed by Govn’t. The French last year protesting about fuel tax hikes. And recently the Zimbabwean Govn’t shutdown access to mobile and internet networks with protests and deaths over fuel price hikes, apparently now the most expensive fuel in the world.

Is this the start of the end of the green blob?

Rick C PE
January 19, 2019 9:15 am

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Michael Oppenheimer – at the time Chief Scientist for the EDF. ‘nough said.

So What
January 19, 2019 9:22 am

Why is every ecosystem always described as “fragile”? Ecosystems are tough, resilient, persistent and impossible to destroy. They survive nuclear blasts, volcanic eruptions, floods, frosts and fire.

William Astley
January 19, 2019 9:23 am

We need to figure out some way to harness ‘Activist Power’ for good rather than for evil.

Evil is stopping the improvement in living conditions for poor people. Idiotic evil doers think they are on the side of good when they are on side of chaos/evil.

Bangladesh has an estimated population (2016) of 162 million people. Their country is less poor than super poor countries (mostly African countries) as they have a textile industry.

Industry requires law and order, electrical power, people that want to work, and so on.

Ranking, Country, Per capital income in US dollars
146 Bangladesh 1,517
147 Zambia 1,510
148 Kenya 1,508
149 Uzbekistan 1,504
150 Cameroon 1,447
151 Cambodia 1,384
152 Myanmar 1,299
153 Kyrgyzstan 1,220

179 Uganda 610
180 Liberia 598
181 Togo 585
182 Afghanistan 584
183 South Sudan 534
184 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 512
185 Sierra Leone 497
186 Gambia, The 484
187 Madagascar 451
188 Central African Republic 394
189 Mozambique 379
190 Niger 364
191 Malawi 294
192 Burundi 273
193 Somalia 198

Reply to  William Astley
January 19, 2019 9:52 am

Bravo for Bang-the-Dish! They are announcing their rise out of the 3rd world countries.

Flight Level
January 19, 2019 9:32 am

From ScientificAmerican:

“Climate refugees from Bangladesh, a predominantly Muslim country, are not welcome in the neighboring countries of India and Myanmar. India is building its version of a border wall, a barbed-wire fence.”

While at COPxx junkets both Bangladesh and Myanmar chant climate psalms and strong leadership slogans. So…

One for the money
Two for the show
Three to get ready
And four to go

January 19, 2019 9:36 am

Some ecologists are like watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

January 19, 2019 9:43 am

The author of this piece seems to be ignorant of the importance of mangoves as a physical barrier protecting low-lying coastal areas — especially in the Bangladesh delta.

The geography of Bangladesh demands mangrove marshes to protect the land — removing the mangroves means the sea will wash the land away.

Bangladesh needs BOTH == power plants and mangroves.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 20, 2019 10:44 am

Eric ==> As you know, the coastal mangroves perform lots of important functions — specific to mangroves — that can not be done by concrete walls or other physical barriers.

The proper response to the complaint that the plans for the power plant call for destruction of the protective mangroves is to change the plan to allow the mangroves to stay in place and perform their function and build the power plant! It should be be an either/or situation.

As you know, any land that is covered by mangroves is totally unsuitable for any major structure — and certainly not suitable for a power plant. It is a questionable proposition to build a power plant in a location that involves considerations about mangroves in any case — mangroves grow at 0 to 6 feet above sea level — in the tidal zone — thus any power plant plan that must consider mangroves is on land far to close to sea level. Much of the delta has “a large tidal range (three to six meters)”.

With a tidal range that large, unprotected soil washes away, often unreplaced due to the poldering of farms and villages and dredging of main river channels to increase river flow and prevent flooding.

This little kerfuffle is an example of how failure to frame a problem rationally leads to conflict. Properly framed, the question really is “How can we build this power plant and still keep it and the surrounding land protected by mangroves?”

Note carefully that in this particular case — this power plant — is being built in Rampal, north of the Sundarbans Forest (a national forest, protected) and will have no effect on the Sundarbans mangroves. The protest by environmentalists are using the mangroves as a straw man in their ongoing anti-development campaign. So, in one way your are justified to “dismiss” the environmentalists objections — but not because “Who gives a stuff about a bunch of Mangroves, when human lives are at stake?” but because the power plant is a faked up threat in the first place.

Cheers, Kip

More on this is one of my earlier essays: BANGLADESH: The Deep Delta Blues.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 20, 2019 10:45 am

Correction: “It should NOT be an either/or situation. “

January 19, 2019 10:02 am

The socialist Trojan Horse way is for Bangladesh to take climate aid scraps from the Developed (OECD) countries in lieu of their own economic independence and devolopment.

The green lunatics lament they aren’t falling for the ruse as climate aid money comes with conditions imposed by the UN..

January 19, 2019 10:18 am

Wonder where the LGN is coming from. Fracking maybe? Even if not from a fracked source the price will be lower due to the increased supply from….. wait for it FRACKING. Hooray for the old guys in jeans, boots, and cowboy hats.

January 19, 2019 10:23 am

yup. coming from Texas

January 19, 2019 10:39 am

without the protection of Mangroves you will lose both.
install solar panels above the mangroves in place of the LNG plant. See how long the mangroves last. Solar panels would be much more destructive than an LNG plant.

Yes, mangroves protect the coastline, but they sure can make it a miserable place for human beings. Hot, humid and full of mosquitoes. Impenetrable except via waterways. At dusk the mosquitoes come out of the mangroves and eat you alive.

Mangroves are found throughout the tropics, along with coral reefs. In many cases the mangroves are behind barrier reefs and can be selectively removed for human habitation without sacrificing the coast.

There are many, many examples of tropical cities around the world that were built over top of mangroves. Darwin Australia for example.

Yes, you may well need to take steps to minimize erosion after the mangroves are removed, but simply leaving the mangroves untouched is not compatible with large scale human habitation. At a minimum you need to selectively remove the mangroves for roads, docks, houses, beaches, etc. ctc.

January 19, 2019 10:41 am

Bangladesh poverty rate fell from 40% in 2006 down to 24% in 2016.

Bangladesh exports rose from U$17 billion in 2009 up to U$37 billion in 2017.

Bangladesh grew it’s GDP by at least 6% annually from 2007 through to 2017.

Bangladesh rural household income rose 40% from 2010 to 2016.

Bangladesh unemployment unfortunately went up from 2010 to 2017 by 7% & 1/3rd of it’s young with education are unemployed.

Paris agreement proponents seeking to impose their ideas on Bangladesh need to also force 85% of their family members to work in the textile industry. This would be fair because >85% of Bangladesh exports come from textiles.

Gary Pearse
January 19, 2019 11:50 am

In a few years, the mangroves and forests will be even greener in Bangladesh courtesy of the the LNG fired electicity plant. ” The Great Greening” is, so far, the only unequivocal sign of climate change and ironically, the Gang Green, who are looking for a miserable brown world will be lost in a purgatory of green.

January 19, 2019 12:07 pm

Aren’t mangroves in Bangladesh more endangered by shrimp farms ? It looks like a power plant is a better environmental trade off.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 19, 2019 12:24 pm

Bangladesh is energy poor, even by comparison with other energy-poor countries.

I found electrical generation capacity numbers here (unfortunately 2013 numbers).

Population figures (2018) here.

So Bangladesh has 6,663,000 KW of generating capacity (not broken down by type) for 168,065,920 people, or a per-capita capacity of 0.0397 KW. By comparison from the same data: India: 0.1520 ; Pakistan: 1.1088; Zimbabwe: 0.1176; Mexico: 0.4685; China: 0.8070; US: 3.1572. (Obviously China has added a lot of capacity since 2013, so that number is low).

The average Bangladeshi lives on roughly a third the electricity of the average Pakistani and roughly a fourth that of his neighbors in India, and about 1.25% of the average US resident. Adding the 1.3 GW this plant provides is a major (19%) boost.

Let me put that 0.0397 KW per capita in perspective: that’s enough to power one 40-watt light bulb per person. Anyone reading this comment lives somewhere the per-capita consumption never drops as low as 40 watts, just for personal household use. Unless you trip the main service disconnect, you probably can’t turn off enough stuff to get down to that level of consumption. But for Bangladesh, 40 watts per person is what the whole country has to get by on. This is really poor.

You’d think author Divya Rajagopal would at least be pleased this much-needed addition to Bangladesh generating capacity was coming from clean natural gas instead of coal, but instead she complains because it spoils the view. Would she say the same thing about the hundreds of wind turbines required to provide the same power (some of the time)?

Maybe a power plant isn’t as attractive as the natural landscape, but the constant view of poverty is much uglier.

So What
January 19, 2019 12:33 pm

For every square meter of wetland converted to a rice paddy or residential, industrial, commercial use, convert another square meter of wasted ocean space to a wetland through creating some dykes and a bit of dredging. I bet its not that expensive and everyone benefits. Their 30% educated youth unemployed could build it. Of course the greenies will oppose it for some stupid reason or other.

Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2019 12:40 pm

The onslaught of a new power plant on the fragile ecology of the Sunderbans is fresh proof of the futility of climate reforms.

Inquiring minds wish to know: what the frack does ecology (a real issue, sometimes) with the pseudo-issue of “climate change”?

Chris Hanley
January 19, 2019 1:03 pm

Bangladesh PM tells Al Gore to piss-off, in the nicest possible way:

January 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Go Bangladesh! Developments up the River Rupsa will ensure the future happiness and security of the Bangladeshi in the face of self-serving Green Hypocrisy and Marxist environmentalism.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
January 19, 2019 2:05 pm

The ‘Marxist’ tag might apply to a few hardcore Greens, although I doubt many of them would have got past the first page of Das Kapital, throwing the epithet around clouds the issue and puts people off IMO.
The vast majority of so-called Greens are just younger idiots: “… the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake …” (Richard Lindzen 2009).

Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 19, 2019 2:28 pm

They may be younger idiots, but they are still younger idiots working in support of a Marxist agenda. Even if they don’t realize it.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  MarkW
January 19, 2019 3:53 pm

The problem in labelling climate alarmism amongst the young as ‘Marxist’ is that it encourages the acceptance of, or provides an entrée into, a package of ideas that are genuinely Neo-Marxist.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 20, 2019 7:58 am

Whether they are properly labeled or not, the younger idiots are still being exposed to Marxist ideas and ideals.

High Treason
January 19, 2019 2:59 pm

Attempts to deny this muslim nation the opportunity to raise their standard of living by utilising fossil fuels can be regarded as racist. On leftist arguments, it would be regarded as racist.

Hello social justice warriors- your climate activism to prevent the developing world rise out of poverty is racist. Hang your little sawdust filled heads in shame-you nasty racists.

January 19, 2019 5:21 pm

“Tuhin, a student of forestry, would walk up to the banks of the River Rupsa in Khulna, Bangladesh, to capture the moment of dusk, when the setting sun left the sky lit up like fireworks. In romantic Bengali literature, it is described as the moment to catch a glimpse of a new bride. But Tuhin doesn’t do this anymore. The sun now sets behind the boundary of an upcoming LNG power plant.”

What a lazy berk!

Couldn’t he walk a few hundred yards further and watch the sunset beside the new LNG plant?
Or is that too much to expect in a world of snowflakes?

He makes it sound like the entire river bank is filled by one LNG power plant.
Making his entire article based upon fictions and lies.

michael hart
January 19, 2019 5:31 pm

I actually enjoy stories of this nature.
Like a petulant child, the Green Wehrmacht will stamp their feet and scream and shout until they make themselves sick. All to no avail.

Like the retreat of Napoleon’s Grande Armée from Moscow, or that Austrian guy who didn’t have much fun at Stalingrad, this is war they are losing. Inch by inch, day by day, they will lose. Because they are trying to deny humanity what humanity wants: a better life.

Howard Dewhirst
January 19, 2019 7:40 pm

The green left leaning well meaning attitude is reminiscent of Marie Antoinette’s famous response to being told the people of Paris did not have bread to eat ‘Let them eat cake’

January 19, 2019 8:01 pm

The author of this sob story is a bit light on facts. The site of the Khulna LNG plant according to the Asian Development bank (funding source) is the 50 acres of the abandoned Khulna Newsprint mill complex on the west side of the Bhairab river (meets up with the Rupsa down south).google earth the site and they have pictures showing the delapidated buildings and what appears to be tall smokestacks! Hard to believe that the new plant is going to add any view obstruction from the rupsa river. Good on the Bangladeese for picking a great spot to help raise themselves out of poverty and clean up the neighborhood!

By the way the coal fired plant going into rampal south of Khulnais on the east side of the river. Sunsets no problemo.

Reply to  Darcy
January 20, 2019 8:24 am

The article is probably referring to the Rampal power station project, it is a different beast from Kuhlna , check it’s wikipedia entry for description.

January 20, 2019 12:06 am

Bangladesh is a river delta and so it has no erosional problems. The mangroves do not stop storm surges one second.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
January 20, 2019 9:11 am

Rubbish, try being there in a cyclone or monsoon & watch as millions of tons of earth are washed into the Bay of Bengal.

Hocus Locus
January 20, 2019 7:55 am

If only there were extension cords long enough so Bangladeshis could attend the next Conference and drown the dialogue in a merry din of small household appliances. Call it My Green Dream.

January 20, 2019 3:26 pm

If the stack is scrubbed, unlike most in the West for most of their active use, what is the problem? Plants will get more CO2 and toxic emissions will be minimal. Now explain again the physics and bio chemistry of the actual problem.

Gary Kendall
January 22, 2019 11:21 pm

Does Rosatom’s order book not include one for Bangladesh? [ To save time looking it up, Rosatom is the Russian State Nuclear Power company. They claim a forward order book of 36.]

%d bloggers like this: