8 development banks commit to provide more than $175B to scale up support for sustainable transport
21 June 2012
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and seven other multilateral development banks (MDBs) are committing to provide more than $175 billion of loans and grants for transport in developing countries over the next decade. The ADB made the announcement on behalf of the MDBs at the Rio + 20 event in Rio de Janeiro.
Participating MDBs include: African Development Bank; ADB; CAF – Development Bank of Latin America; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; the European Investment Bank; the Inter-American Development Bank; the Islamic Development Bank; and the World Bank.
Rapid motorization is creating more congestion, air pollution, traffic accidents and greenhouse gas emissions—especially in developing countries. Developing countries have the opportunity to leapfrog to a greener future of less motorization, shorter commutes, and more energy efficient transport systems.
—ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda
Global CO2 emissions from the transport sector are projected to increase nearly 50% by 2030 unless significant changes are adopted. In many Asian nations, losses from traffic-related congestion already amount to 5% of GDP. Many large Asian cities also suffer from the highest air pollution levels in the world, contributing to the premature death of half a million people each year.
Inadequate transport continues to exacerbate poverty and inequality in many regions of the world, inhibiting access to schools, healthcare, markets, and job opportunities, the MDBs said.
Yet despite the importance of the transport sector, which also directly contributes 5-10% of GDP in most countries, it has been largely neglected in the global sustainable development agenda. The joint MDB investment is intended to help develop and implement more environmentally-friendly, accessible, affordable, and safe transport solutions.
Sustainable transport solutions are available. ADB is already supporting green transportation solutions across Asia, including low-cost electric vehicles in the Philippines, urban metrorail systems in Viet Nam, bus rapid transit systems in Mongolia and Bangladesh, and inland waterway transport in the People’s Republic of China.
This will be part of the $400+B effort required to accelerate the switch from ICE to Electrified vehicles.
EU is offering $100B, USA will do as much and the rest of the world will probably put up another $25+B.
How much will really be done by 2020?
Is 10% to 20% a possibility?
Posted by: HarveyD | 21 June 2012 at 10:47 AM
This has all the earmarks and smell of BS.
Big, grand, glorious BS.
But BS just the same.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 21 June 2012 at 07:37 PM
@TT,
Why so much BN? (Bitter Negativity)
It's the thought that counts, even if they won't achieve all of their goals. Are you scare of the world-wide drive toward Green Mobility and EV? Have a lot of stocks in oil?
Posted by: Roger Pham | 21 June 2012 at 11:56 PM
Yes TT seems to have an ax to grind against participation by the 97% in any project that could increase the general well being of the majority. In other words, a project is good, ONLY if it will benefit the 3% and even better if it benefits ONLY the 1%. I doubt that this kind of behavior was/is in the constitution. Wonder where he got it from?
Posted by: HarveyD | 22 June 2012 at 09:09 AM
I think the idea is grand but aimed to mislead and otherwise without substance.
Much like the "manned mission to Mars".
"It's the thought that counts"?
That's nonsense! or wait; is that in the constitution?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 22 June 2012 at 03:18 PM
@TT,
There is no choice but to go Green, especially in the developing world who don't have a huge army to ensure the steady flow of oil. Either go Green, or no go, when the fossil fuel supply will run out.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 22 June 2012 at 09:32 PM
You imply that a huge army means we do not have to pay for imported oil; did we invaded Canada?
And you think we get most of our oil from Iran since we got rid of Saddam?
And when did oil peak?
Was that a few years ago now, just before oil prices declined?
Do you think we are ever going to start getting oil from the oil sands?
Will somebody, maybe in Canada, figure out how to do that economically?
Are you assuming, or just hoping "the fossil fuel supply will run out" soon, so we can just go ahead and send $175 billion to developing countries now?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 23 June 2012 at 05:04 AM
[incomplete paste]
And if oil does not peak, will coal and/or natural gas?
-
Posted by: ToppaTom | 23 June 2012 at 08:02 AM
It is well known that oil supply simply cannot keep up with demand. The US-NATO involvements in the Middle East in the past 6-8 decades are mainly to secure oil supply.
Saddam was but recent history. It went back much further than that. Even as far back as the British Empire and the creation of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq (creations of the British empire)
WE are not sending any money. It is the Asian Development Bank and other Banks from other countries in the world. Why? Because Green economy will be the next economic engine of the world.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 23 June 2012 at 10:40 AM
It is well known that saying something “is well known” means “I want to believe this, do NOT confuse me with the facts.”
Oil supply IS keeping up with demand. Asked if he was still worried about peak oil, the director of the UK energy research centre which sounded the alarm just two-and-a-half years ago replied: "Not much".
The reasons for the US-NATO involvements Mid East is not relevant to the $175 billion for transport in developing countries nor is the history of the British Empire.
We ARE part of the Multilateral Development Banks, which are:
• The African Development Bank
• The Asian Development Bank
• The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
• The Inter-American Development Bank Group
And if the US does NOT send the major portion of this, it will become unfunded BS, which is where we started on this.
“Green economy will be the next economic engine of the world.”
You do not understand.
The “Green Economy” is a cost, a significant cost but not an engine; just as you car’s brakes may dissipate a thousand horsepower; unless they are regenerative, they are not “engines”.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 24 June 2012 at 04:08 AM
@TT,
The supply of oil has been very tight, and that has been the official explanation for the rapid rise in oil prices. Unless, TT, you have some inside knowledge of some kind of price manipulation scheme at work? The high oil prices, and highly fluctuating oil prices, have been wreaking havoc on the US and the World's economies since 2008.
Renewable energy and energy saving part of the Green Economy will bring energy price stability, and that factor alone will foster economic growth more than anything else. UNCERTAINTY over the future prices of oil will hamper economic growth and development. The high prices of oil have been responsible for the bankruptcies of many airlines, of GM and Chrysler, and many other businesses.
Don't also forget that many Asian tropical countries are already very hot and humid, and just a few degrees of higher temperature will become uninhabitable for those who must travel and work outdoors. The hot and humid temperatures will exceed body temperature of 98.6 Farenheit and sweating won't cool off due to the humidity, and fan won't work since the air is hotter than the body temperature.
A significant amount of coastal land areas will be loss due to rising sea level that will greatly impact very crowded tropical parts of the world.
If you don't wanna see a flood of immigrants from tropical countries flocking to the first world in temperate zone, taking away jobs, resources and opportunities from local residents there (or here!) then we all have got to get real serious about global warming, climate change, and rising sea level!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 24 June 2012 at 10:29 PM
The rapid rise in oil prices has stopped, retreated and oil is again keeping up with demand and may be further stabilized by natural gas and oil sands.
Oil prices will continue to stress the world economies as alternate energy sources slowly emerge; but just like the EV, they have been just around the corner for decades.
So even though renewable energy is where we hope to end up, it should not be allowed to supplant oil as the cause of stress for the world economies.
This $175 billion drain would almost certainly go down the drain in foolish attempts to bring new, unproven but "exciting" sources of energy to market before they are ready. That is if the $175B were real.
THAT is the lesson of Solyndra; large bureaucracies with no reason to fret unduly about spending other peoples money.
UNCERTAINTY over whether it is the uncertainty or the high oil prices themselves that is so stressful is obviously confusing, so I guess you simplify it by just saying immigration, if due to global warming takes away jobs, resources and opportunities from local residents.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 25 June 2012 at 09:17 PM