Toronto Escorts

More dam financed by The World Bank

enjoyall

New member
Jan 15, 2005
64
0
0
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GD08Ae03.html

Why in the world does The World Bank finance all these ultra-expansive dams in poor third world countries? The interest payment itself will take a poor country forever to pay off, environmental impact not withstanding. I start to believe that it's the western companies that will be build the dam (suppliers, consultants, builders) who are using the poor people to line their own pockets, and the world bank is just a predatory agency. If it truely cared about the poor people, it should build schools, health centers, and so on. No wonder the World Bank never got any country out of poverty. It's a farking shame.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
enjoyall said:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GD08Ae03.html

Why in the world does The World Bank finance all these ultra-expansive dams in poor third world countries? The interest payment itself will take a poor country forever to pay off, environmental impact not withstanding. I start to believe that it's the western companies that will be build the dam (suppliers, consultants, builders) who are using the poor people to line their own pockets, and the world bank is just a predatory agency. If it truely cared about the poor people, it should build schools, health centers, and so on. No wonder the World Bank never got any country out of poverty. It's a farking shame.
Could be everything you say is true, and that would still leave the question: Where's the electricity going to come from if not from hydro?

We call our electric utilities in Ontario and Quebec "hydro" because that's where we get ours from. As the article said; currently (pardon the pun) Indochina gets its electricity from burning: coal, oil, gas (don't suppose wood might be next do you?) pretty much all of it imported and expensive and really polluting, I believe. And I bet the article's cost numbers pre-date $50/bbl oil.

Our own government proposes a return to dam-building as one solution to our home-grown power shortage. Having dammed all our big rivers we're looking at mini and micro-hydro which should , one hopes, be easier to control/adjust to minimize damage. Our "need" is nothing compared to the need of an industrializing third world. If we can 'manage' the unpleasant side-effects, so can the Laotians, given the assistance and incentives.

Of course that puts the ball back in the hands of the self-proclaimed experts at the World Bank and other NGOs doesn't it? Who believe the really big pots of money come from really big projects. Damn!
 

enjoyall

New member
Jan 15, 2005
64
0
0
Quote from the article "Project contractor Electricite de France and its two Thai partners have calculated that over the 25 years of the dam's operating concession, the government in Vientiane will earn almost $2 billion in revenues", then "even the contractors' revenue figures are questionable; the[World] bank itself does not expect total income to exceed $250 million at net present value, while some independent estimates are lower. "

Guess who is more likely to lie to the Laos about how much revenue the dam will generate. The cost of the dam is 1.2 billion, if no budget overruns, and most time they do. What the Laos' going to do when that happens, stop the project or put up more money? I don't deny that developing countries need electricity, but again, building the dam now probably just makes the Laos poorer than they already are.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
The numbers are so far apart, I'm sure everybody's lying. I'm equally sure the builders, operators and the government will do pretty well by it.

But the fix is never a one-sided affair; every bit of 'progress' comes at a cost. Finding ways to lessen the negative impacts will likely be far more successful than just stopping the whole project, because if it ain't this project it'll be some other.

Wholesale opposition never taught anyone anything, except how to be a better opponent, and what we want is a Worl Bank that learns there's as much profit for the boys in doing things right as there is in short-sightedly doing them like they always have.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..just about the only thing we in the West make any more is Debt. We are trying to load all these Countries with so much Debt they will never be able to repay us.
Easier then making a good TV, though alot riskier as a basis for your economy.
 

strange1

Guest
Mar 14, 2004
807
0
0
Considering many developing countries debts will never be repayed, I see it as gift to allow these countries to develop "clean," renewable power. I'm not a greenie but hydro's great in my books.
 

ice_dog

Member
Jan 13, 2002
667
0
16
enjoyall said:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GD08Ae03.html

Why in the world does The World Bank finance all these ultra-expansive dams in poor third world countries? The interest payment itself will take a poor country forever to pay off, environmental impact not withstanding. I start to believe that it's the western companies that will be build the dam (suppliers, consultants, builders) who are using the poor people to line their own pockets, and the world bank is just a predatory agency. If it truely cared about the poor people, it should build schools, health centers, and so on. No wonder the World Bank never got any country out of poverty. It's a farking shame.


Did you say the World Bank predatory agency ? History shows otherwise. The Word Bank never gets its money back, nine out of ten times. The World bank is like a charity organization, seriously. My sister-lin-law used to work for the World Bank in Washington .D.C.
 
Last edited:

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
ice_dog said:
Did you say the World Bank predatory agency ? History shows otherwise. The Word Bank never gets its money back, nine out of ten times. The World bank is like a charity organization, seriously. My sister-lin-law used to work for the World Bank in Washington .D.C.
Charity agency fer sure; the only question is who's getting the dished-out dough? The poor folks whose hunger and poverty pull our heartstrings, or the multi-nationals,crooked pols and bureaucrats who promise to make it all better and repay the money.
 

enjoyall

New member
Jan 15, 2005
64
0
0
ice_dog said:
Did you say the World Bank predatory agency ? History shows otherwise. The Word Bank never gets its money back, nine out of ten times. The World bank is like a charity organization, seriously. My sister-lin-law used to work for the World Bank in Washington .D.C.
The histroy shows that most countries makes good on interest payment. They dare not to default on those loans, otherwise they risk total finanical destruction: no more loans from international agencies. The very poor countries begs to have debts write off, year after year. There are few voices in the west asking for forgiveness of those debt to poor countries. So far it has not happened yet. The only country recently got its debt written off is Iraq, and that's because the US pretty much asked on Iraq's behave.
 
Toronto Escorts