Bugger off Madam

The new IMF chief should not be chosen by Europe alone
Amanda Khozi Mukwashi
The financial institution has the power to tackle the climate crisis yet it excludes applicants from the global south

There’s a simple explanation.

It simply cannot be right that the leadership of the institutions with the greatest power to tackle the climate crisis excludes applicants from those countries where that crisis is wiping out the lives and livelihoods of many millions of people. The IMF aims to create sustainable growth and to reduce poverty in the world. How can it do so when it is run on fundamentally undemocratic principles?

It’s the democracy of money. North America and Europe pay the money into these institutions. Therefore they get to decide where the money goes.

Now bugger off.

It is time for all members of the IMF to stand together and vote against a model that mocks the principles and values that the same countries place above all else.

Sigh. Ignorant twat.

23 thoughts on “Bugger off Madam”

  1. climate crisis […] is wiping out the lives and livelihoods of many millions of people

    I have noticed that we’re running desperately short of Africans.

  2. “those countries where that crisis is wiping out the lives and livelihoods of many millions of people.”

    Where’s that then?

  3. “those countries where that crisis is wiping out the lives and livelihoods of many millions of people.”

    Poorer countries where power supplied mainly by coal fired power stations which has dramatically improved the lives of those that live there, lifting them out of poverty at a faster rate than at any time in human history.

    Most of those poorer people would happily accept the trade off of climate change to get out of grinding poverty.

  4. Ummm…

    If there’s a crisis, it can be described, its root causes identified with solid data, and the mitigating acts prioritized by effectiveness, including value for money.

    This is, for want of a better term, engineering, which isn’t remotely democratic .

    Where is this analysis?

    If it turns out that there is a crisis and it is known what the root causes are and we know how to fix them, there is a possibility that getting agreement to spend and fix might be something that is better done democratically.

    But it’s the folk who will be paying who get asked.

  5. “institutions with the greatest power to tackle the climate crisis”

    To what extent is this true?

    If the head of the World Bank and/or IMF turned round tomorrow and said “right lads (and lasses) – from now on we are all about climate change, down with that sort of thing” then how much difference could they make?

    Even if they only signed up to projects that are carbon-neutral or whatever, how does that help when the vast majority of emissions are coming from developed and middle-income countries and it will remain mindbogglingly expensive to wean them off fossil fuels until (a) the cost of an appropriate renewables mix for their geographic region falls, and (b) their existing power plants approach their end of life (not an easy sell to shutter a newly built power station, particularly if modern ones tend to be “greener” than the ones they replaced).

  6. It simply cannot be right that the leadership of the institutions with the greatest power to tackle the climate crisis excludes applicants from those countries where that crisis is wiping out the lives and livelihoods of many millions of people.

    What a lying bitch, the greatest threats to the people of the developing world are the insistence that they shouldn’t have cheap, reliable energy and dumb concepts such as food miles denying them export markets.

  7. The Meissen Bison

    The IMF and the World Bank have very different remits and the IMF doesn’t promote projects so there’s not much that it can do on the eco-front.

    What it does do and increasingly blindly is to impose the same conditions on borrowers irrespective of whether or not these will help the borrowing country: Greece is the paradigm for a bail-out-cock-up.

    Also, it’s a little tendentious to claim that it’s those putting up the money for the Bretton Woods organisations (which is raised in capital markets and by subscription) who should have the say: the shareholdings are the basis for voting. There is justification in the contention that there has been something of a stitch-up between the USA and Europe over the managing directors of the institutions since their inception.

    As for the IMF, France has bagged the top job indecently often and while de Larosière and Camdessus were well thought of, DSK left under a considerable cloud and Lagarde who has a nice complexion if your bias tends that way, was complicit in the Greek debacle and was impugned under French law. As successor to Draghi, she will do wonders at the ECB.

  8. Bloke In Westerville

    She’s right you know.

    Just look at the state of Somalia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina (for starters) and you just know these are the sort of political, intellectual and economic elites who should be running things.

  9. @TMB

    I did wonder if the wet dream would be for the IMF to impose eco-conditions on bailouts – “thou shalt shut down thy polluting heavie industrie and all thy new power shalt be renewable”? But it doesn’t seem likely since it surely makes repayment tougher.

  10. The Meissen Bison

    @MBE

    Making repayment tougher should be but isn’t anathema to the likes of the IMF, ECB, Eurogroup.

    Varoufakis’s “Adults in the Room” is an eye-opener in this regard and Greece is trapped in a downward spiral in which imposed austerity measures further shrank the economy while the debt burden increased as a percent of GDP.

    It’s not even as if the Troika were capable of half-way decent modelling. One fine example was an imposed tax increase (I’ve forgotten on what) was forecast to produce a given amount of additional revenue and this calculation supposed that demand remained unchanged despite the hike. The upshot of course was that the revenue from this source fell, leaving Greece with a bigger hole to fill.

  11. There is one and *only one* “institution with the greatest power to tackle the climate crisis”: it is called the Chinese Communist party.
    China emits more CO2 than Europe and the USA combined.
    China is increasing emissions while the “West” is reducing them.
    Anyone who ignores China in debating “Climate Change” is either plumb ignorant or a lying hypocrite.

  12. Sigh. There is no climate crisis, the whole thing is based upon computer models which have been proven to have no predictive power whatsoever. Every prediction made by the climate change alarmists has either not happened or has predicted the opposite of what actually happened.

  13. I did like the way the Australian weather bureau revised all the old temperature measurements, on the ground that they didn’t know how to do it in those days. Oddly enough, the new measurements made it plain that global warming had actually happened.

  14. Yeah, but Stonyground, you’ve got to admire the way they’ve moved seamlessly into just calling it *the* climate crisis. Accepted fact, innit.

    That takes a real talent for language. Allied to cynicism and intellectual dishonesty. Mind you, isn’t that what politicians of all stripes are for?

  15. Stonyg calls it–there is no “climate crisis” and it is time to steam into the lying leftist pricks trying to bring on Marxist tyranny using the green freakshow as an excuse.

    Circ de Soliel indeed.

  16. One fine example was an imposed tax increase (I’ve forgotten on what) was forecast to produce a given amount of additional revenue and this calculation supposed that demand remained unchanged despite the hike. The upshot of course was that the revenue from this source fell, leaving Greece with a bigger hole to fill.

    No need for a troika for that. Brown (50% tax & Pensions) and Osborne (Stamp Duty & Pensions) were experts in doing it.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    When all the climate models tell you the same thing you know they’re not just wrong, but not even useful.

    I think it was Climate Sceptic who had a good article about them not even being able to hindcast without being stuffed full full of “plugs”.

  18. Young friends, I can assure you that, regardless of what the “Greenies” (many of whom desire to be The Mekon) say, England is warmer than it was 60-70 years ago. I cannot remember when I last had chilblains which were a common, recurrent feature of my youth despite my parents’ investment in gloves and good shoes for their children.
    That does not mean that “ClimateChange” scientists are impeccably correct in everything that they say.
    However anyone wishing to counter lefty propaganda should point out that Communist China is the ONLY factor that matters in the “Climate Change” debate. It produces over 28% of global CO2 emissions, and almost certainly a larger share of other pollutants as it burns more coal than the whole of the rest of the world, it increases its CO2 emissions every 2 years by more than the UK’s total emissions (which are reducing), its CO2 emissions are greater than the whole of Europe (excluding Russia – the data lumps European and Asiatic Russia together) plus the USA and Canada.
    Tell them to march outside the Chinese Embassy. And the answer to their answer is that China’s CO2 emissions per
    head are significantly *higher* than the UK’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *