Global Warming to reform World Bank & the IMF ?

[titan]

By David Gelles and Max Bearak
Nov. 9, 2022Updated Nov. 10, 2022
SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt — The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were created 80 years ago to rebuild countries devastated by World War II and to stabilize the global economy. But an expanding group of world leaders now say the two powerful institutions need a 21st century overhaul to handle a new destructive force: global warming.
There is growing momentum behind a set of ideas that would fundamentally overhaul the two powerful financial institutions, which frequently loan or grant money from rich, industrialized nations to developing countries. The proposals are rapidly gaining traction among heads of state, finance ministers and even leaders of the bank and the fund, who are all meeting now at the United Nations climate summit known as COP27.
The current global financial system was designed to try to alleviate poverty through loans or grants to help nations develop or recover from calamity. Loans were based on risk, and wealthier nations were charged lower interest rates and offered better terms than poor countries.

Poor Countries Need Climate Funding. These Plans Could Unlock Trillions.​

As global warming delivers cascading weather disasters, leaders at U.N. climate talks say it’s time to radically overhaul the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados during preparations in the country’s capital, Bridgetown, for Tropical Storm Dorian in 2019. Credit...Nigel R. Browne/Reuters

Poor Countries Need Climate Funding. These Plans Could Unlock Trillions.

As global warming delivers cascading weather disasters, leaders at U.N. climate talks say it’s time to radically overhaul the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

www.nytimes.com

Sea level rise may threaten millions of impoverished lowlanders. The expense of moving them is considerable. But where can so many millions be moved?

 

[sear]

t #1,
Part of the problem is perception t.
How much $money do they need?

The public perception, those from the wealthy countries that would have to provide this money to the poor nations:
$Money is fungible.
Metaphorically, a poor nation that can't afford a Cadillac before this crisis gets funding, slashes its Carbon output to near global target, but suddenly can afford the Cadillac.

If the World Bank or IMF provides funds to pry an impoverished nation out of poverty, we want that nation to prosper. BUT !
If that nation is provided the same amount to reach Carbon emission reduction targets, and also prospers, I suspect donor nations may make issue of it.

 

[Borg Refinery]

The above post raises a lot of good points.

The flipside of that, is that higher education correlates with lower birth rates, lower birth rates means less consumption thus less emissions overall probably. IIRC, in Sub-Saharan Africa you get the highest birth rates in the world and in Japan and much of the West you have the lowest, I think that's right anyway, so your above post needs a little more context with some of those key points too.

It may be more prudent to look at the top 100 emitters rather than individual countries as some of their unscrupulous activities are transnational.

 

[sear]

"It may be more prudent to look at the top 100 emitters rather than individual countries as some of their unscrupulous activities are transnational." BR #3

Anthropogenic climate change isn't as simple as some might think.
Obviously industrialized nations are contributors to pollution on an industrial scale. BUT !!

Earth is both receiving liberated Carbon into the atmosphere, and simultaneously surrendering Carbon out of the atmosphere. Trees, jungle are champions in that process.
Amazon deforestation sounds the alarm for that reason.

I like your "outside the box" perspective here BR: to address global warming, educate the population. Not as fluky as some might suggest.

Problem is we're not even meeting our own targets. So if in total the 100% of options available to us, I'm not sure it makes sense to settle for 80%. Time to pull out all the stops.

 

[sear]

t #1

A brief check of IMF on global warming produced this: https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/climate-and-the-economy
The most recent article is years old.
And an existential peril like this global warming trend isn't much to cheer about. BUT:

There is some reassurance in such facts as corporations out ahead of governments on this issue.
Automobile manufacturers for example are switching from the internal combustion engine (ICE) to electric motors. Consider these other examples from the United Nations: Examples of Climate Action Initiatives

Industry and Transport

Energy

Business and Finance

Resilience and adaptation

Nature Based Solutions

Urban planning

Climate Action Initiatives | United Nations

www.un.org

But:
meanwhile weather continues to cause problems
and other environmental problems like the proliferation of plastics, and micro-plastics a serious challenge.

"May you live in interesting times"