In the U.S., the U.N. is the favorite villain of right wingers, jingoists and conspiracy theorists. For international progressives, the villains of late (besides the entire Bush administration) have been the WTO, the IMF, and perhaps, the most egregious of them all, the World Bank.

Now 121 organizations, including Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace, Oil Change International and Sustainable Energy and Economy Network and organizations from nearly 40 countries, have joined together to oppose the World Bank’s proposed Climate Investment Funds. The group call it a “less dirty” technology fund, as opposed to a promise of investment in actual clean technology. The groups have issued a declaration stating, in part:

The World Bank's energy lending patterns must be addressed before it takes control of climate funding. Unfortunately, and in sharp contrast to the transformational role that any useful public finance mechanism must play, the World Bank Group continues to commit scarce international development finance in a manner that locks in long-term energy pathways inconsistent with international climate needs. In fact, since the Gleneagles G8 meeting in 2005, where the Bank Group was tasked with designing a clean energy investment framework and leading the fight against climate change, lending for fossil fuels has actually increased at a rate that exceeds the increase in renewable technologies – thus exacerbating an already large imbalance in funding. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2007, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a Resolution calling for an end to fossil fuel financing by the European Investment Bank and Export Credit Agencies. – EndOilAid.org

One major complaint is that the World Bank does not have a clear definition of clean technology and that the fund will include financing for coal plants which are slightly less polluting than existing ones, but can hardly be defined as clean technology.

Distrust of The World Bank also plays a major role in the opposition. "The World Bank is spectacularly unqualified to manage climate funds due to their long-term practice of financing carbon emissions from oil and gas," said Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth US. "Moreover, the Bank's play to control climate funding could undermine the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the proper place for these funds."

The groups are also critical of the World Bank’s plan for a Strategic Climate Fund which would include loans to developing countries for climate adaptation. The developing world is already deeply in debt to the World Bank and the IMF, which have been known to place unwieldy regulations on their debtors. Going further into debt to manage a problem created in the developed world but experienced in the developing world is criticized by the groups as being “unfair and unethical”.

The World Bank’s record when it comes to energy has contributed to distrust for the organization.

World Bank Group support for fossil fuel extraction in FY06 actually increased 93% compared to FY05. The private sector lending arm of the World Bank Group – the IFC actually increased its support for oil alone by more than 75% from FY 05-06. Current World Bank Group support for fossil fuels, including power, has increased at least 42% over FY05 levels. World Bank support for renewables and efficiency is also increasing but by less than its support for fossil fuels – 28-40% by the Bank’s own estimates. So the gap in funding is actually growing larger, and exactly the wrong signals are being sent to the market.- EndOilAid.org

With the mounting costs of both reliance on fossil fuels and climate change no doubt, both an international Clean Energy Investment Fund and a Climate Adaptation Fund are needed. The World Bank is not the organization to oversee them.

Further Reading:

• The World Bank’s Climate Deals
• World Bank Climate Profiteering