[sustran] Revision/expansion of my yesterday's somewhat aggressive (but not negative) commentary on World Bank draft plan for Global Environmental Facility

[Britton EcoPlan]

Subject: Revision/expansion of my yesterday's somewhat aggressive (but not
negative) commentary on World Bank draft plan for Global Environmental
Facility 

Walter Hook wrote in Sustran-discuss V1 #100:
 >>The Global Environmental Facility, which funds major projects related to
greenhouse gas emissions reductions and is controlled by the World Bank is
about to come out with their funding criteria for the transport sector, and
as we feared the news is grim.... We need to mobilize a letter of complaint
to Mr. Dilip Ajuta from the World Bank GEF office.<< 

A couple of quick and I hope useful reactions to that, if I may. 

1. The present game plan strikes me as a retrograde piece of work, and
knowing the players I feel quite sure that it is fairly presented in your
note of yesterday. I certainly agree that their recommendation requires an
immediate and strong response. I further concur that this forum can be a
great place to start. 

2. I call it retrograde because it is so dreadfully predictable in its own
way. (Count on the Bank to find yet one more way to get the environmental
side of the issues wrong in the transport sector. I really seems to be
their Achilles' heel. That between us here in private, of course).  The
problem, sadly!, is that they have once again narrowed their sights before
fully grasping the real issue set... that is, they are here dishing out
answers without understanding what the basic questions are... the
priorities out there in and near the streets of the cities of the
developing countries.

3. As our observant friends point out, it's not that there is anything
WRONG with the hydrogen/fuel cell option. To the contrary! I for one
certainly have no problem understanding how my friends at IIASA and the AIT
can fall in love with this.  Indeed it is terrific and timely stuff and a
whole gob of public money cleverly deployed is most certainly just what is
needed now to help advance and shape the timely technology breakthrough
which really is (yes! this time it really is) right out there in the near
term horizon.  (Fact is we will be looking very closely at these
technologies in the next round of our Toward Zero Emissions Conference
which is shortly to get underway at http://www.the-commons.org/zero-ems,
together with photovoltaics, because we too are convinced that this is
heady and timely stuff). 

4. Problem is, of course, that all of this means precious little in real
world terms if our concern is -- as indeed it should be with a Global
ENVIRONMENTAL Facility! -- with cities and regions that are presently being
split asunder by their lousy transportation configurations. The problem of
transport in cities is many sided, systemic, and thus so too must be the
approach. And the time horizon is not some comfortable 5 to 25 years or
whatever it takes to get even the most benign of these new technologies in
place and performing in a way that they make a real, palpable, breathable
difference.  Fooling around with power sources of vehicles under the
present circumstances is no more than nibbling at the margins of the real,
crushing problems they are currently facing. Even if we were somehow able
to get this particular technology route splendidly right, even in a best
case... all of this would not be making much more than a percent of a
percent impact on the full range of sustainability issues over the coming 5
or so years. As they put it in sunny Southern California (cough! cough!),
let's get real. 

5. You all know this well of course, but somehow we have to find a way to
get the message across.  Based on what I read yesterday I very much doubt
that Mr. Dilip Ajuta is going to be part of the solution, at least not in a
first instance. Looks to me in fact that as things stand he is more part of
the problem. So I really see no sense of appealing to him directly, since
it will doubtless only drive him yet deeper into a denial mode (and we all
know how that works). May I suggest instead that we go for (a) his boss's
boss and (b) do this in the full glare of day (though of course most
genteel-ly).  

6. Nuance!  Putting the less diplomatic parts of the above diatribe aside
(pardon my passion), may I suggest further that we go at this now in a way
that opens up a 'new partnership' which Mr. Dilip Ajuta and the others who
have put their shoulders together on the present initiative at the Bank
thus far can join in... early and with enthusiasm. In fact, if we are
really clever, we may be able to engineer this in such a way that all those
who have thus far labored to get things this far will in fact a strong
sense of ownership in the new and expanded policy which I hope that we will
now be able to hope them develop.  After all, success can afford the luxury
of many smiling fathers (and mothers).  It's a big house.

7. Might be that what is needed is a nicely reasoned, calmly worded, plain
English response of less than a page which makes our point and then is
signed by one or two hundred "International Experts and Concerned
Citizens". ( Such a "Declaration" could be backed up by supporting papers,
a bibliography, list of WWW sites and references that help make the point,
further define what might be the path, etc., but should be kept short and
to the point for media and public discussion purposes. 

8. Also, wouldn't it make good sense for us in our wording and approach to
take a very positive slant one all of this? We might, for example, begin by
praising them briefly for their recommendation, and then kindly explain
that we must go WAY beyond that if the truly agonizing environmental and
life quality brief - which is indeed the proper brief of the GEF -- is to
be properly served. 

9. We might also give a word concerning the importance of the issues and
the routes that they have already targeted for funding under SOME OTHER
program of the Bank or international community - on the grounds that it
really is a hot trail.  (Without forgetting of course that it is not OUR
trail.)

From here, we would be pleased to offer space for a home page on The
Commons in support of this initiative. I also feel that we could probably
come u p with quite a large number of distinguished signatories, and as
soon as we have our statement set will be pleased to go out chasing for
support. 

Finally, might we somehow link this to Kyoto or somehow use it as a fulcrum
to lift up this otherwise dead weight?  Would be nice if we could turn what
presently looks like a bit of a problem into an opportunity!

With all good wishes,

Eric Britton

_________________________________________________________________
EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems

E-mail:         postmaster at the-commons.org/ecoplan
World Wide Web: http://www.the-commons.org
Day Phone:      331.4441.6340  (Also ISDN videoconference/groupwork)
Day Fax:        331.4441.6341
ISDN Data:      331.4441.6342
Mobile Phone:   336.0737.7798
Postal:         EcoPlan International
                Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara
                F-75006 Paris, France
24 hour backup phone/fax: 331.4326.1323