What’s $3.5 billion divided by 138?
Eskom wants a $3.5 billion loan from the World Bank and it looks as though their application will be denied. The US won’t vote for or against awarding Eskom the loan but the other 23 members of the World Bank’s board of executive directors will. So I have a suggestion — those 138 companies who profited from reduced electricity tariffs should sommer give Eskom $3.5 billion, which is R25 billion all in all.
Bonus prize goes to those 10 companies who had had the most profitable business deals with Eskom — they get to pay the bulk of the prize.
Cause you see, these reduced business tariffs are part of the reason for Eskom’s failure to provide the proper service they should give us. And poor people have paid far too much for the parastatal’s incompetence and fraudulent tactics. Let big business pay for a change.
Caveat: This is only possible in a world where these companies won’t pass on the cost to their consumers.
The Loan was approved, this is a tragedy for the South African Nation and South Africa as a country….
Reading the following one can see that there were very few in favour of the loan… i also hasten to add that this is only a portion of the loan applied for from the World Bank – after SA Govt turned down a R60 bn loan request from Eskom…
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/world-bank-approves-375bn-eskom-loan-2010-04-08
QUOTING:
WASHINGTON – The World Bank on Thursday approved a controversial $3,75-billion loan for the development of a coal-fired power plant by South African state utility Eskom despite the lack of support from major shareholder countries.
The United States, the Netherlands and Britain said they abstained from supporting the loan because of environmental and other concerns about the project.
Eskom has defended the development of the 4 800 megawatt Medupi plant in the northern Limpopo region, saying it is critical to ease the country’s chronic power shortages as well as to ensure electricity flows to neighboring states.
The World Bank said the loan would help “South Africa achieve a reliable electricity supply.”
“Without an increased energy supply, South Africans will face hardship for the poor and limited economic growth,” Obiageli Ezekwesili, World Bank vice-president for Africa, said in a statement.
The U.S. Treasury said it abstained due to “concerns about the climate impact of the project and its incompatibility with the World Bank’s commitment to be a leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation.”
A Dutch Foreign Ministry spokesman said it had advised its representative at the World Bank to abstain, citing concerns that Eskom was not doing enough to develop alternatives to coal.
“The Netherlands believes Eskom is doing relatively too little to develop alternatives to coal, so we don’t think this is a good proposal,” a ministry spokesman told Reuters.
“We also understand that South Africa is in need of extra energy capacity to support its economic growth. Therefore, the Netherlands has advised our (executive director) for our constituency to abstain,” he added.
The U.S. Treasury said the project was inconsistent with U.S. guidelines issued in December by the Obama administration on coal-related lending by development banks.
It said the project was also incompatible with the World Bank’s strategy to help countries pursue economic growth and poverty reduction in ways that are environmentally friendly.
The Treasury said that while it recognized South Africa’s pressing needs, it was concerned the project would produce “significant” greenhouse gas emissions.
It also said it did not expect the World Bank to bring forward similar coal projects for middle-income countries “without a plan to ensure there is no net increase in carbon emissions.”
Britain’s Department for International Development said the project raised “several sensitive and potentially controversial issues” that it had been unable to resolve due to an election campaign.
The opposition to the Eskom loan has raised eyebrows among observers who note that Britain and the United States are allowing development of coal-powered plants in their own countries even as they raise concerns about those in poorer countries.
The South African plant is using the same so-called clean coal technology used in the United States and other developing countries to lower carbon emissions.
The Environmental Defense Fund called the bank’s decision a setback.
“This was a missed opportunity for the U.S. and the World Bank to move away from a traditional focus on fossil-fueled growth and toward a new model of low-carbon economic development,” said Peter Goldmark, director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s climate and air program.
Donnette E Davis
9 Apr 10 at 10:18 AM
I’m not happy about this, and especially not after hearing that the ANC will get a cool R5,7 billion out of the deal. I’m surprised that the World Bank granted the loan…
Joy-Mari Cloete
9 Apr 10 at 4:18 PM