The headline seems striking; in reality, we have somewhat exaggerated it to attract continued attention from those who read this. Global is an indeterminate generic term, which sometimes becomes blurred; there are too many worlds depending on the scale and scope of analysis. Here it is more concrete because it delineates an institution. Bank sounds like money, but how and for what.
We identify local banking a bit, but it surely costs us much more to say what the World Bank does and what it is for (hereinafter WB). If we pay attention to the presentation on its website, it states that its mission is to “end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity on a livable planet.” But it adds that this dual mission is threatened by multiple interrelated crises, which time threatens to increase their damage if not properly addressed. In a way, it answers the question of what it is and what it is for.
It is resilient to climate and biodiversity crises. It declares itself sustainable. It aims to achieve this through growth and job creation, improving human development, and a regeneration of fiscal and debt management. It advocates for food security; for access to clean air, healthy water, and affordable energy for all.
In the current context, the world (still not delineated) bears climate change to varying degrees. This not only refers to physical issues but also to its repercussions on the lives of all, including non-human biodiversity. The money (that’s what bank sounds like) is too often an economy forced by those in power, with increasing repercussions on the ecosocial dynamics and environmental degradation. We dare to conclude after the presentation that in all areas, in societies near or far in this world of complex governance, a new perspective is very much needed. This must be based on political and economic governance postulates, as both severely affect the climate crisis that still some leaders of institutions and countries deny; or do not consider a priority for their attention.
To be honest, we consider the headline justified when we learn that the abandonment is confirmed despite the fact that the executive directors of France and 18 other shareholder countries had signed a letter last October supporting the bank’s ongoing work on climate change. However, the largest executive shareholder, the United States, refused to sign it. But not only that, it was supported by Russia, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia; India and Japan abstained. As if that were not enough, the Reuters news reports that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ordered the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2025 to return to their main missions of development and financial stability. In his view, the lending entities had deviated towards issues related to climate, gender, and other areas denigrated by the Trump administration.
Let’s return to the article’s headline. It made headlines in international media at the end of June. We have taken the title from the Reuters Agency: “World Bank to abandon goal to devote 45% of lending resources to climate change projects”. In it, David Lauder comments that the World Bank Group had announced that it would “withdraw” its previous goal of allocating 45% of its annual lending resources to projects with “collateral” climate benefits; which we understand to be essential. The announcement contained a safeguard that, on the contrary, it would extend its previous concern for the Climate Change Action Plan. Let us remember that it had been in effect for a long time but was about to expire. We suspect that the WB, like the IMF, will act under pressure from the Trump administration: out with climate loans. Moreover, it is said that this change is being made to monitor the results of the invested money, rather than to specify and evaluate the investment objectives.
Since we usually read several sources before writing each article, we have turned to another portal with which we maintain a good rapport. CarbonBrief Clear on climate poses a question that goes beyond simple abandonment. It more or less says: How will the abandonment of the financing goal by the World Bank affect climate action? Because of course, the BMD (a section of the WB) was the main financier of climate action last year: it contributed 39.2 billion dollars just in 2025, mainly in the form of loans. Moreover, AIF (International Development Association), another of the WB’s entities, distributes grants to low-income countries, as well as loans with reduced interest.
There are still more contributions now at risk. The WB cooperated with 164 billion dollars in a chapter called financing with “collateral benefits” climate between 2020 and 2025. The largest recipients of this money were Turkey, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan, and China. Just to name a few.
Let us note that the goal of reducing the negative effects on health and well-being that climate change causes is in suspense, and in suspense. Let us remember that developed countries, including the main shareholders of the World Bank in Europe and elsewhere, signed the Paris Agreement. Therefore, they are obliged to provide climate financing to developing countries. The agreement includes a target of 300 billion dollars annually by 2035. Will developed countries fulfill their commitments?
Still the world’s major economies and so-called investment funds only think of themselves. They do not want to understand that all help for the decarbonization of the global climate positively impacts their citizens in one case and on economic balances in the other.
