Ok you have a right to whatever opinion and, sure, the drafters don’t fully understand the nuances of how TFs work. So what. That’s not the point. And I’m sure, if any hill staff read your post, they’d conclude similarly that you don’t fully understand how congress or appropriations work. So let’s all show some grace and try to understand the goals of the other rather than nitpick details to dismiss their aim.
I actually don’t understand why IBRD-IDA is a sensible dividing line for being able to afford nuclear or not. Lots of countries started with nuclear power while IDA eligible. The affordability should be project based. And that’s why the investment ban that needs to be removed is IFC not IBRD.
lol. Arguing that nuclear is too expensive is not a reason for keeping the ban. It’s exactly the reason for informed infra decision making, not ideological red lines. You’re revealing your ex ante tech bias, which is exactly the problem IMHO. And why do you think this would be IBRD lending?
Great news!!
Ok you have a right to whatever opinion and, sure, the drafters don’t fully understand the nuances of how TFs work. So what. That’s not the point. And I’m sure, if any hill staff read your post, they’d conclude similarly that you don’t fully understand how congress or appropriations work. So let’s all show some grace and try to understand the goals of the other rather than nitpick details to dismiss their aim.
I actually don’t understand why IBRD-IDA is a sensible dividing line for being able to afford nuclear or not. Lots of countries started with nuclear power while IDA eligible. The affordability should be project based. And that’s why the investment ban that needs to be removed is IFC not IBRD.
lol. Arguing that nuclear is too expensive is not a reason for keeping the ban. It’s exactly the reason for informed infra decision making, not ideological red lines. You’re revealing your ex ante tech bias, which is exactly the problem IMHO. And why do you think this would be IBRD lending?