Environmentalists and Tea Party Types Agree. They Don't Like The Export-Import Bank [View all]

[cali]

Do we need it? Anyone well informed on this?

I've been trying to read up on it, since Dems in the Senate have made passage of TPA contingent on Turtle promising a vote on it before the end of June. I know a lot of dems and repubs support it and quite a few tea bagger types oppose it. Looks like environmentalists hate it. It seems kind of a relic to me, but I don't know a lot about it. Is it something U.S. taxpayers should be funding? Found this on Wiki:



Ex-Im Bank's Charter provides that Ex-Im Bank makes available "not less than 20%" of its lending authority to small businesses" although they have often fallen short of the 20% threshold.[7][8] Generally, its products are available to support export sales for any American export firm regardless of size.In fiscal year 2013 however, 76% of the value of loans and guarantees went to the top 10 recipients

<snip>

The Bank has come under criticism for favoring special interests ahead of those of the U.S. taxpayer. These interests have included corporations such as Boeing or Enron as well as foreign governments and nationals (such as a 1996 $120 million low-interest loan to the China National Nuclear Power Corporation (CNNP)).[46] 65% of loan guarantees over 2007 and 2008 went to companies purchasing Boeing aircraft.[47] In 2012, the Bank's loan guarantees became even more skewed, with 82 percent of them going to Boeing customers.[48] There are many unseen costs created by the Export-Import Bank's subsidies, including artificially raising the price of new airplanes and potentially adding $2 billion to the deficit over the next decade.[49]

<snip>

In February 2009, the Ex-Im Bank settled a seven-year-long legal proceeding brought by Friends of the Earth, other NGOs, and various American cities. The plaintiffs claimed that the Ex-Im Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation provided financial assistance to oil and other fossil fuel projects without first evaluating the projects' climate change impacts. In 2005, the plaintiffs were granted legal standing to sue, considered a landmark decision, because it is the first time that a federal court has specifically granted legal standing for a lawsuit exclusively challenging the federal government's failure to evaluate the impacts of its actions on the Earth's climate and U.S. citizens.[52] In its settlement agreement, the Ex-Im Bank agrees to evaluate the carbon dioxide emissions as part of its determination for qualification for a project.[53] However, Ex-Im Bank fossil fuel financing and associated greenhouse gas emissions grew swiftly after the settlement agreement, coinciding with Chairman Hochberg's tenure. Between 2009 and 2012, Ex-Im Bank fossil fuel financing grew from $2.56 billion to nearly $10 billion.[54][55]

Environmental groups say that under the Obama Administration the Ex-Im Bank is on a "fossil fuel binge," which “makes a mockery” of President Obama’s stated commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.[56][57] In December, 2009, Ex-Im Bank Directors approved $3 billion in financing for the ExxonMobil-led Papua New Guinea Liquid Gas project in December, 2009.[58] The project has reportedly sparked violence and in April, 2012, the Papua New Guinea government called in troops to quell opposition from villagers after a landslide linked to a quarry that had been used by the project killed an estimated 25 people.[59][60]

In 2010, environmental groups criticized the Ex-Im Bank Directors for approving $917 million in financing for the 3,960 megawatt coal-fired Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project in India after initially rejecting the project on climate change grounds. Environmental groups say that in reversing the decision the agency’s Chairman, Fred Hochberg and Board of Directors "caved in" to political pressure from Wisconsin politicians.[61][62][63][64][65] In 2011, several environmental groups protested at Export-Import Bank headquarters, unsuccessfully urging Chairman Hochberg and Board of Directors to reject $805 million in financing for the 4,800 megawatt Kusile coal-fired power plant in South Africa,[66] which environmental groups say is the largest carbon emitting project in the agency's history, which will not alleviate poverty but will emit excessive local air pollution which health experts say causes damage the respiratory, cardiovascular, and nervous systems and deaths resulting from heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.[67][68][69][70]

In 2012 three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against Chairman Hochberg and the Ex-Im Bank for the agency’s financing of two liquid natural gas projects being constructed inside the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The lawsuit alleges that Ex-Im Bank financing for the projects violates U.S. environmental and cultural heritage laws.[71]

Conversely the Ex-Im Bank has also faced scrutiny for pursuing green energy projects. The Ex-Im bank provided 10 million dollars of loan guarantees to Solyndra in 2011, a company which ultimately went bankrupt.[72] More recently the bank authorized 33.6 million dollars in loans to Abengoa, a Spanish Green energy company on which former Governor Bill Richardson sits on the board. As of May 2014, Richardson was also listed as a member of the advisory committee of the Export Import Bank.[73] On the campaign trail in 2008, then candidate Obama called the bank “little more than a fund for corporate welfare”[74]

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export-Import_Bank_of_the_United_States#Criticism