southchild

In the name of supporting US exports, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, an independent government agency, financed the construction of numerous power plants all over the globe. Because Ex-Im Bank cannot compete with private sector financial institutions, most of these projects were in riskier, emerging market countries, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and Mexico, to name a few.

When these financings were initiated, most, if not all, of the countries suffered from power shortages and brown-outs. Many of the countries relied on very inefficient, out-dated and dirty technology. As a result of these financings, the old plants have often been decommissioned and replaced with efficient and clean power. Sounds like a success story on many fronts, but not if you’re a bunch of whining, lunatic environmentalists here in the US.

See if you can follow this logic: It seems that Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, along with the cities of Boulder, Colorado and Oakland, Arcata and Santa Monica, California filed suit in the US District Court in San Francisco (can you say “forum shopping”!!) in 2002. In this suit, these plaintiffs are alleging injury from global warming because of the construction of these power plants. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that these plants, specifically, are causing a harm to them. Seems impossible doesn’t it?

The US Justice Department thought it was an impossible burden and filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the plaintiffs’ case be dismissed. Unbelievably, the judge disagreed and denied the motion, so it is possible that the case may go to trial.

So, let’s ignore the fact that, as mentioned above, the newly constructed facilities are far cleaner than the plants being replaced. Let’s also forget that, in many emerging market countries, the electricity demand is growing very rapidly and these countries’ supply will never be met with wind, solar or other renewable resources, and let’s forget that it is impossible to demonstrate that a power plant in Turkey is having an adverse effect on the citizens in Boulder, Colorado. If ever a case was ripe for summary judgment, this was it, and the fact that the judge denied the motion is troubling.

Now, one could rationally argue that the US government shouldn’t be in the banking business at all. I think that’s a fair criticism, though I’m not fully convinced for reasons beyond the scope of this post. However, the plaintiffs’ argument is so far-fetched as to be ludicrous.

One final note on this story: I find it incredibly hypocritical that the plaintiffs, who are the direct benefactors of clean, fossil fuel generated power in the US, will go to court to stop others in less fortunate countries from enjoying the same privilege.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 26th, 2005 at 12:00 pm and is filed under General, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.