\n<\/p>\n
The International Monetary Fund’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.<\/span>Krblokhin\/Getty<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This story was originally published by<\/em>\u00a0the<\/em>\u00a0Guardian<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0is reproduced here as part of the\u00a0<\/em>Climate Desk<\/a>\u00a0collaboration.<\/em><\/p>\n Governments desperate for <\/span>cash to protect their citizens from the growing impacts of the climate crisis are being put in a \u201cbeyond absurd\u201d situation this week at global finance talks: they are being urged not to mention the climate, even as they address the current oil crisis.<\/p>\n The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (WBG) spring meetings take place this week amid a\u00a0fragile ceasefire in Iran<\/a>\u00a0and upended geopolitics. One of the priorities was to forge a new\u00a0\u201cclimate change action plan\u201d (CCAP)<\/a>\u00a0for the world\u2019s biggest provider of funds to developing countries to replace the current strategy, which expires in June.<\/p>\n Now, it looks like the new plan may be shelved, along with substantive discussion of the climate crisis.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is beyond absurd that, in the middle of an escalating oil crisis, a World Bank meeting could sideline talk of climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n With the\u00a0oil crunch still biting<\/a>, the delegates from up to 189 countries at the conference in Washington, DC, might have been expected to discuss investments in renewable energy, which many see as crucial to energy security and an antidote to volatility. Climate finance is also a\u00a0pressing issue for poor countries<\/a>\u00a0already paying billions each year to repair the damage from droughts, floods and storms.<\/p>\n If these discussions are instead largely confined to whispers in corridors, the reason is clear: the US president, Donald Trump. Insiders have told the Guardian<\/em> the White House is forcing countries to choose between opening up a potentially unbridgeable rift or playing down the climate crisis and trying to squeeze in green priorities by the back door.<\/p>\n Last autumn, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demanded the\u00a0removal of some climate finance targets<\/a>\u00a0from the World Bank\u2019s aims and insisted it must \u201cfinance all affordable and reliable sources of energy\u2026[with] an all-of-the-above approach to energy that includes financing for gas, oil, and coal.\u201d The US is the biggest shareholder in the World Bank, with about 17 percent of its capital.<\/p>\n Other countries, including large developed economies, have reacted with alarm. Senior staff of several international finance and development institutions have said the US has piled pressure on the\u00a0World Bank<\/a>, the IMF, and other publicly funded institutions over the climate.<\/p>\n They said that, although the climate was still on the agenda, people at a senior level were \u201cself-censoring\u201d and removing the term from reports and projects. The Guardian<\/em> understands some leading countries prefer not to push for a new CCAP.<\/p>\n That would be disastrous for the developing world, experts said. \u201cIt is beyond absurd that, in the middle of an escalating oil crisis, a World Bank meeting could sideline talk of climate change,\u201d said Mohamed Adow, the director of the Power Shift Africa think tank. \u201cFossil fuels and the climate emergency are inextricably linked. This moment is a huge opportunity to\u00a0accelerate the shift away from fossil-fuel dependence<\/a>, with potentially historic benefits for the world. It will be a tragedy if politicians fail to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n Catherine Abreu, the director of the International Climate Politics Hub, said: \u201cThe spring meetings will be a big test of these institutions. Will we see the World Bank and IMF unable to respond to the majority of their members, because they are swayed by these powerful minorities?\u201d<\/p>\n Under its\u00a0current CCAP<\/a>, the World Bank Group aims to devote 35 percent of all its funding to climate-related activities, half of which should be for adaptation, and the group has also moved to end most finance to fossil fuels, though\u00a0loopholes remain<\/a>. The World Bank is the\u00a0biggest single source of climate funding<\/a>, and many donor countries channel their climate finance largely through the multilateral development banks.<\/p>\n \u201cYou don\u2019t have to plant big climate flags on these things; it\u2019s just a good investment.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n At the\u00a0Cop29<\/a>\u00a0UN climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, countries agreed that at least\u00a0$1.3 tillion a year should flow to the developing world\u00a0<\/a>by 2035, to help countries cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather. Developed countries committed $300 billion a year of that total, and reaching the target\u00a0cannot happen without the World Bank<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the World Bank Group\u2019s last financial year, from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, 48 percent of financing qualified as having climate co-benefits under its methodology.<\/p>\n A spokesperson for the World Bank Group said: \u201cThe World Bank Group supports public and private clients in achieving their smart development goals. This includes building low-carbon, resilient infrastructure, and energy systems that manage emissions responsibly so countries can create jobs and sustain growth.<\/p>\n \u201cWe will finance what works best for countries, using a least-cost, reliable mix to meet their needs, while managing emissions responsibly. It is not an either\/or and we are continuing to see strong demand for support for adaptation and mitigation from our clients. Over the last decade, 215 million people have gained new or improved access to electricity through our current energy programs, and we expect this number to grow to 575 million.\u201d<\/p>\n Much could still be achieved without formally labeling projects as climate-related, Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist and now a professor at the London School of Economics, told the Guardian<\/em>. \u201cYou don\u2019t have to plant big climate flags on these things; it\u2019s just a good investment,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cUS pressure is coming on the World Bank, but they can continue to do agriculture, forests, water, energy, public transport. These things are highly relevant to tackling the climate crisis\u2014without highlighting climate change,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n He also pointed to mass transit systems, such as urban railways, in\u00a0cities in the developing world<\/a>. \u201cMetro systems in cities are a big part of the climate story. Why would the US oppose metro systems in overcrowded cities? Building a metro is not a covert climate action; it\u2019s just doing things better.\u201d<\/p>\n There is still much work to be done on clarifying what should make up the $300bn and $1.3 trillion targets. Stern said: \u201cThe\u00a0way climate finance is counted<\/a>\u00a0is something I hope will develop. Without jiggery-pokery, there are lots of things that we should be supporting that should be counted towards the global climate finance goal.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
\n