Vaughan Spa

The White House Wants a Climate Denier Out as World Bank President

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
16,603
3,226
113
Ghawar
Sept 22, 2022

John Kerry, the United States special presidential envoy for climate, signaled Tuesday that the Biden administration is working behind the scenes to remove the president of the World Bank, Trump appointee David Malpass. Kerry’s comments came hours after Al Gore, the former US vice president and longtime climate activist, called Malpass “a climate denier” and called on President Joe Biden “to get rid of” him and “put new leadership in” at the world’s largest development bank.

Kerry and Gore were speaking at an event hosted by The New York Times as part of Climate Week NYC, an annual series of public events coinciding with the United Nations General Assembly that aims to galvanize climate action. Malpass, appearing separately from Kerry and Gore at the event, called Gore’s call for his removal “very odd.” On stage, Malpass was asked three times whether he “accepted the scientific consensus that the man-made burning of fossil fuels is rapidly and dangerously warming the planet.” Each time, the World Bank president declined to answer before finally saying, “I don’t even know, and I’m not a scientist.”

“We need to get a new head of the World Bank, for god’s sake,” Gore said before a live audience while answering questions from Somini Sengupta, the Times’ international climate correspondent. In a heated tone, Gore said that “it’s ridiculous to have a climate denier at the head of the World Bank” at a time when poorer countries need affordable loans to install solar and wind facilities rather than burning more coal and other fossil fuels.

“If you’re in Nigeria and you want to privately finance a new solar farm,” Gore explained, “you have to pay an interest rate seven times higher than what the OECD [i.e, wealthy] countries pay. If you want to build a wind farm in Brazil, you have to pay interest three times higher than what the US pays.” With 90 percent of future heat-trapping emissions projected to come from developing countries, such unaffordable interest rates imperil the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is imperative to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Providing loans at more favorable interest rates is “the job of the World Bank, and they’re simply not doing it,” Gore said. “We need to get rid of that leadership and put new leadership in, and I hope President Biden will take that initial step.”

“We will hear from the World Bank president later [today],” Sengupta said.

“Good! Tell him I said hello,” Gore replied, provoking chuckles from the audience.

“Actually, tell him I said goodbye,” Gore added as the chuckles turned into laughter.

Appearing hours later on the same stage, Kerry made it clear the Biden administration shares Gore’s displeasure with Malpass, whom Trump nominated to head the World Bank in 2019. Formerly the chief economist at Bear Stearns, an investment bank that collapsed during the 2008 financial crisis, Malpass was an economic adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and later served as President Trump’s undersecretary for international affairs at the Treasury.

Posing a question from the audience, this reporter told Kerry that his former Senate colleague Gore had called on the Biden administration to get Malpass removed before asking Kerry, “Does the administration have confidence in David Malpass as the head of the World Bank?”

“I can’t comment on what the status is of an individual, that is the president’s decision,” Kerry replied. “I will tell you this, though. I have been pushing for months, along with others in the administration, and it’s an open door, not pushing against a shut door…. Earlier today in a meeting we had with a big group of nations talking about development, we made it crystal clear that we need to have major reform and a major restructuring with respect to the multinational development banks.”

Kerry added that the African Development Bank now allocates about 67 percent of its lending to climate, and that the Asia Development Bank is “doing pretty well,” as is the European Development Bank. Notably missing from his list was the World Bank, an absence Kerry alluded to when he added, “If I keep going, you will get a feel for where I am.” Again, laughter rippled through the crowd.

The United States cannot unilaterally remove Malpass; the World Bank’s governing board has the sole authority to select and remove the bank’s president. But Kerry pointed out that the US is the World Bank’s “largest shareholder,” and historically the US has exercised decisive influence over the governing board’s decisions. Citing “the Europeans, our friends, the Germans, the French, the Brits,” Kerry said, “It is up to us to pull people together and get that reform. And [there is] a lot of discussion about doing that right now.”

 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
18,941
5,381
113
Lewiston, NY
Sept 22, 2022

John Kerry, the United States special presidential envoy for climate, signaled Tuesday that the Biden administration is working behind the scenes to remove the president of the World Bank, Trump appointee David Malpass. Kerry’s comments came hours after Al Gore, the former US vice president and longtime climate activist, called Malpass “a climate denier” and called on President Joe Biden “to get rid of” him and “put new leadership in” at the world’s largest development bank.

Kerry and Gore were speaking at an event hosted by The New York Times as part of Climate Week NYC, an annual series of public events coinciding with the United Nations General Assembly that aims to galvanize climate action. Malpass, appearing separately from Kerry and Gore at the event, called Gore’s call for his removal “very odd.” On stage, Malpass was asked three times whether he “accepted the scientific consensus that the man-made burning of fossil fuels is rapidly and dangerously warming the planet.” Each time, the World Bank president declined to answer before finally saying, “I don’t even know, and I’m not a scientist.”

“We need to get a new head of the World Bank, for god’s sake,” Gore said before a live audience while answering questions from Somini Sengupta, the Times’ international climate correspondent. In a heated tone, Gore said that “it’s ridiculous to have a climate denier at the head of the World Bank” at a time when poorer countries need affordable loans to install solar and wind facilities rather than burning more coal and other fossil fuels.

“If you’re in Nigeria and you want to privately finance a new solar farm,” Gore explained, “you have to pay an interest rate seven times higher than what the OECD [i.e, wealthy] countries pay. If you want to build a wind farm in Brazil, you have to pay interest three times higher than what the US pays.” With 90 percent of future heat-trapping emissions projected to come from developing countries, such unaffordable interest rates imperil the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is imperative to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Providing loans at more favorable interest rates is “the job of the World Bank, and they’re simply not doing it,” Gore said. “We need to get rid of that leadership and put new leadership in, and I hope President Biden will take that initial step.”

“We will hear from the World Bank president later [today],” Sengupta said.

“Good! Tell him I said hello,” Gore replied, provoking chuckles from the audience.

“Actually, tell him I said goodbye,” Gore added as the chuckles turned into laughter.

Appearing hours later on the same stage, Kerry made it clear the Biden administration shares Gore’s displeasure with Malpass, whom Trump nominated to head the World Bank in 2019. Formerly the chief economist at Bear Stearns, an investment bank that collapsed during the 2008 financial crisis, Malpass was an economic adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and later served as President Trump’s undersecretary for international affairs at the Treasury.

Posing a question from the audience, this reporter told Kerry that his former Senate colleague Gore had called on the Biden administration to get Malpass removed before asking Kerry, “Does the administration have confidence in David Malpass as the head of the World Bank?”

“I can’t comment on what the status is of an individual, that is the president’s decision,” Kerry replied. “I will tell you this, though. I have been pushing for months, along with others in the administration, and it’s an open door, not pushing against a shut door…. Earlier today in a meeting we had with a big group of nations talking about development, we made it crystal clear that we need to have major reform and a major restructuring with respect to the multinational development banks.”

Kerry added that the African Development Bank now allocates about 67 percent of its lending to climate, and that the Asia Development Bank is “doing pretty well,” as is the European Development Bank. Notably missing from his list was the World Bank, an absence Kerry alluded to when he added, “If I keep going, you will get a feel for where I am.” Again, laughter rippled through the crowd.

The United States cannot unilaterally remove Malpass; the World Bank’s governing board has the sole authority to select and remove the bank’s president. But Kerry pointed out that the US is the World Bank’s “largest shareholder,” and historically the US has exercised decisive influence over the governing board’s decisions. Citing “the Europeans, our friends, the Germans, the French, the Brits,” Kerry said, “It is up to us to pull people together and get that reform. And [there is] a lot of discussion about doing that right now.”

If the repugs hadn't turned traitor during the impeachment trials, he'd be long gone already...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
27,021
22,693
113
Good for the Administration, the delusional twat doesn't deserve to hold a position of power.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,859
6,009
113
The WB has a particular mandate. In order to carry ou that mandate the head need not be a climate zealot but he/she cannot fulfill that mandate effectively if a climate denier.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
16,603
3,226
113
Ghawar
The WB has a particular mandate. In order to carry ou that mandate the head need not be a climate zealot but he/she cannot fulfill that mandate effectively if a climate denier.
I think the guy was effectively saying he didn't know if burning
fossil fuel is dangerously warming the planet.

I never accepted Jesus as my personal savior. Not sure if I
pass as a denier of the divinity of Christ.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,859
6,009
113
I think the guy was effectively saying he didn't know if burning
fossil fuel is dangerously warming the planet.

I never accepted Jesus as my personal savior. Not sure if I
pass as a denier of the divinity of Christ.
You seem to speak in riddles. No idea what my post had to do with accepting JC. In any event if you do not know that burning carbon is warming the planet you are either a denier or too dumb to lead the WB.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
16,603
3,226
113
Ghawar
You seem to speak in riddles. No idea what my post had to do with accepting JC. In any event if you do not know that burning carbon is warming the planet you are either a denier or too dumb to lead the WB.

How about me saying I believe burning fossil fuel is not *dangerously* warming the planet?

To the best of my knowledge none of the global climate models have predicted
how much better climate/weather would have been in the absence of fossil fuel
burning. Does saying burning FF is not going to cause global climate catastrophe
in the near term (10--20 years) sound unreasonable to you?
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,859
6,009
113
How about me saying I believe burning fossil fuel is not *dangerously* warming the planet?

To the best of my knowledge none of the global climate models have predicted
how much better climate/weather would have been in the absence of fossil fuel
burning. Does saying burning FF is not going to cause global climate catastrophe
in the near term (10--20 years) sound unreasonable to you?
You are entitled to your opinion of cousre. And you and your friends will doom the planet to ever increasing climate events and the attendant disruption of lives an cost. I will not be around to experience it and I have no idea your age but you will likely not either. But my children and grandchildren etc will. Most parent aspire to leave their children better off then they were and this would include the planet.

What possible difference could it make if the catastrophe is not here in 10-20 years. even if it is 100 years the catastrophe will be no less catastrophic for our descendants who will sure say that it could have been avoided or at least mitigated.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
16,603
3,226
113
Ghawar
What possible difference could it make if the catastrophe is not here in 10-20 years. even if it is 100 years the catastrophe will be no less catastrophic for our descendants who will sure say that it could have been avoided or at least mitigated.
It makes a big difference. If catastrophe is to strike in 10-20 years Trudeau, Biden,
Anthony Albanese and the leaders of the UK and Norway would have to put a lid
immediately on growth of fossil fuel production and bring it to zero in the near term.
If we can wait for 100 years all the countries above can continue squeezing all of
the remaining oil resources to the last drop. Don't you know Norway has carried
its drilling operations into the Arctic sea? Under the auspices of Trudeau, Guilbeault
and Wilkinson Canada will also continue deep water drilling in Newfoundland
after the Bay Du Nord begins production. Our climate leaders would consider
it non-pragmatic to let oil production to avoid some unknown catastrophe
for our descendants.
 

bazokajoe

Well-known member
Nov 6, 2010
11,119
10,218
113
Sounds like Gore is looking for a new job.
Isn't he the same guy who kept saying the artic ice caps would have been long gone by now and the human race would be gone?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
110,201
33,599
113
How about me saying I believe burning fossil fuel is not *dangerously* warming the planet?

To the best of my knowledge none of the global climate models have predicted
how much better climate/weather would have been in the absence of fossil fuel
burning. Does saying burning FF is not going to cause global climate catastrophe
in the near term (10--20 years) sound unreasonable to you?
We have 1.2ºC warming from fossil fuels right now, as shown by the science.
We're now close to hitting the first 4 of the major tipping points.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts