SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
green climate fund
The US Should Fund Climate Solutions, Not Fossil-Fueled War
In addition to cutting our own renewable programs to spend more on the carbon-intensive Pentagon, we’re also spending nearly 40 times more helping other countries do the same rather than helping them adapt to our warming planet.
Dec 18, 2025
Ten years ago as of December 2025, nearly every country in the world made a promise. By signing the Paris Agreement, governments committed to limit global temperature rises to no more than 2°C—and ideally 1.5°C— to avoid the most devastating impacts of a warming planet.
Recognizing their historic responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, the Paris Agreement called on wealthier countries like the United States to contribute funding to help poorer countries adapt. And it envisioned the economic and social transformations needed to keep the planet from overheating to unlivable levels.
In practice, that means phasing out fossil fuels, scaling up renewable energy, and investing in sustainable systems—from agriculture to transportation—to keep our world powered and going.
Unfortunately, that’s not what our leaders are doing.
The Pentagon is the most carbon intensive institution on the planet, with emissions exceeding those of entire nations like Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal. And those emissions will likely grow as Pentagon spending continues to skyrocket.
With the world’s largest economy and the greatest chunk of historical emissions, the United States should be contributing an estimated $446 billion per year to meet its fair share of global climate action. Instead, Washington has repeatedly abandoned global leadership—joining the Paris Agreement in 2016, pulling out in 2020, rejoining a year later, and withdrawing again this year.
For the past century, at least 80% of US energy consumption has come from fossil fuels like natural gas, coal, and oil. Today, domestic energy demand is soaring as Big Tech and private corporations race to build massive, water- and energy-intensive AI data centers—further locking in fossil fuel dependence.
Meanwhile, rather than aligning its national priorities with climate commitments, the US government has doubled down on a different and dangerous path: wars and weapons.
The Pentagon is the most carbon intensive institution on the planet, with emissions exceeding those of entire nations like Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal. And those emissions will likely grow as Pentagon spending continues to skyrocket.
Congress recently approved a $900 billion Pentagon budget. When combined with the $156 billion boost for the Pentagon from President Donald Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” that brings the total to over $1 trillion for the US war machine.
That’s right: a trillion dollars.
At the same time, the Trump administration made sweeping cuts to environmental programs that took decades to build.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget was slashed by more than half—from $9.14 billion for 2025 to just $4.16 billion for 2026. And President Donald Trump has cancelled or frozen $29 billion in environmental grants for local communities, undermining efforts to secure clean air and water, clean up contaminated sites, improve public health, and create jobs.
The National Priorities Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, my organization, found that we’ve spent $79 billion on Foreign Military Financing over the last decade alone. In these deals, the US provides grants to other countries to purchase US-made weapons. On the flip side, only $2 billion has gone to the Green Climate Fund, the primary pool of money supporting nations most impacted by, yet least responsible for, climate change. (Under Trump, the figure is actually $0.)
So in addition to cutting our own renewable programs to spend more on the carbon-intensive Pentagon, we’re also spending nearly 40 times more helping other countries do the same rather than helping them adapt to our warming planet.
Ordinary people are already paying the price for these choices. Floods, hurricanes, and wildfires are growing more frequent and destructive, driving up recovery expenses and insurance costs. Utility bills are climbing, too, due to extreme temperatures and energy-thirsty AI data centers.
Ten years after the Paris Agreement, the choice is clear. We can continue down a path of fossil fuels and endless wars, or we can invest in climate solutions that actually keep people safe. Business as usual will leave homes destroyed, families hungry, and people sicker and more vulnerable.
The clock is ticking. It’s time to stop funding destruction and start putting money towards just, healthy futures for all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
World Bank Leads Development Giants in Investing $2.27 Billion in Factory Farms
"We're calling on World Bank President Ajay Banja to phase out these investments, which are undermining his climate agenda," said one researcher.
Oct 21, 2024
The Green Climate Fund and 11 of the 15 multilateral development banks together invested at least $2.27 billion in factory farming in 2023, undercutting their stated climate goals, according to a report published Monday by the Stop Financing Factory Farming coalition.
The report, launched the same day as the start of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank's annual meetings in Washington, D.C., found that the World Bank was the worst offender. The bank—principally through its private-sector lending arm the International Finance Corporation (IFC)—put nearly $750 million toward industrial agricultural projects, five times more than any of the other banks.
"Factory farming is a leading driver of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, biodiversity loss, animal cruelty, and water pollution," Merel van der Mark, head of Animal Welfare and Finance at Sinergia Animal, said in a statement. "Development banks have all pledged to align their investments with the Paris climate agreement, yet are failing to make the kinds of investments needed to keep the goal to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C within reach."
"There are examples of better practices out there."
The report was based on 2023 disclosure information scraped from project webpages by the Early Warning System. It found that the Green Climate Fund and 11 of the 15 multilateral development banks had invested a total of $3.3 billion in animal agriculture generally, funding 62 projects. The banks also mobilized another $3.4 billion for the sector from other sources including banks and governments. The World Bank Group also led the pack in animal agriculture financing overall at over $1.5 billion.
Factory farming—or industrial agriculture—received most of that money, representing 68.3% of investments and 76.7% of supported projects. Only 2.3% of investments and 6.7% of projects involved non-industrial farming that might potentially be sustainable.
The report's authors said their research "reveals a concerning trend toward support for the industrialization of animal agriculture." This can occur through more monocropping of plants like soy or corn for animal feed; more warehousing of large numbers of animals in concentrated feed operations that release large amounts of climate-, land-, and water-polluting waste; and the construction of slaughterhouses.
The World Bank's investments in factory farming go against its own research. The bank released a report in May finding that the agrifood system generates a third of total greenhouse gas emissions, and that animal production and consumption make up almost 60% of those emissions. It even stopped serving meat in its staff cafe.
"The World Bank has set out an ambitious road map to drastically cut agricultural emissions while feeding the world. However, this good work is being undermined by its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation," said International Accountability Project researcher Alessandro Ramazzotti. "Last year IFC invested $501 million in factory farming including a $47 million loan to a Chinese company for a multi-story pig farm, making it the largest investor of all the development banks. We're calling on World Bank President Ajay Banja to phase out these investments, which are undermining his climate agenda."
In addition, the groups behind the Stop Financing Factory Farming coalition—which is headed by Bank Information Center, Friends of the Earth U.S., Global Forest Coalition, International Accountability Project, Sinergia Animal, and World Animal Protection—call on all development banks to move their money from industrial agriculture to regenerative agriculture that boosts biodiversity, helps the environment, and strengthens local communities, following the model of the five banks in the report that did not invest in factory farms in 2023.
"There are examples of better practices out there," said Ladd Connell, environment director at Bank Information Center. "The Green Climate Fund supports some low-carbon projects, such as providing financial and technical support to smallholder women farmers in Cote D'Ivoire to help them adapt to climate change. Where banks invest in new livestock projects, they should be innovative and sustainable, following agroecological principles."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Inexcusable’: US Slammed for Refusal on Global Green Climate Fund
"Parties missed a pivotal opportunity for developed countries to walk the talk regarding their commitments to combating the climate crisis," one campaigner lamented.
Oct 06, 2023
Climate defenders admonished several rich nations for falling short of the $10 billion fundraising goal set for Thursday's Green Climate Fund Pledging Summit in Bonn, Germany, with the United States singled out for what one campaigner called its "glaring and inexcusable" failure to contribute this round, even as the climate emergency worsens.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF)—established in 2010 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to finance projects in developing nations to help them adapt to the climate emergency—presented an opportunity for wealthier nations to make new and increased pledges ahead of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, or COP28, which begins November 30 in Dubai.
However, Thursday's summit raised just $9.3 billion, falling short of its $10 billion goal and coming nowhere near the $200-$250 billion the UNFCCC estimates is needed every year until 2030. Twenty-five countries promised to donate to the fund, with Denmark, Ireland, and Liechtenstein doubling their previous pledges.
Germany and the United Kingdom promised $2 billion apiece. France offered $1.7 billion, while Japan said it would contribute $1.1 billion. Australia, Switzerland, Italy, and Sweden said they were working on their commitments and would donate later.
The U.S.—which previously pledged $3 billion—also signaled its intent to contribute, but offered nothing on Thursday. China, the world's largest polluter, did not pledge.
"Time is not on our side. And promises made must be promises kept," Selwin Hart, special climate adviser to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, said in a statement following the summit. "This is the only way to rebuild the trust needed to confront the climate crisis."
Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at the advocacy group Climate Action Network International, said in a statement that "the Green Climate Fund, envisioned as the lifeline for climate action in developing nations, is held back by the indifference of wealthy countries."
"It's vital to underscore that public finance is key to ensuring vulnerable nations receive the support they need, particularly for boosting adaptation efforts," he stressed.
Singh continued:
While Ireland's 150% pledge increase is praiseworthy, the tepid commitments—or outright stagnation—from nations such as Japan and Norway are deeply concerning. Some countries, like Sweden, seem to sidestep their obligations by urging developing nations to contribute to the fund. The silence of the United States, even as it participates on the GCF Board and shapes policies without meeting its financial obligations, is glaring and inexcusable.
"With COP28 on the horizon, the GCF replenishment conference has fallen short of expectations," he added. "However, it's important to remember that nations are not restricted to making pledges only during set intervals; they can and should step forward with contributions at any time to support climate action."
Tara Daniel, senior program manager at the Women's Environment and Development Organization, said that "today, parties missed a pivotal opportunity for developed countries to walk the talk regarding their commitments to combating the climate crisis."
"As the flagship fund for implementing the Paris agreement, one that prioritizes adaptation as much as mitigation, and governed more equitably than multilateral development banks, the GCF is central to our collective efforts to achieve transformative climate action," Daniel asserted.
"Unfortunately, the pledging conference today showed that while climate impacts continue to increase, collective climate finance through the GCF has not increased," she lamented. "The U.S. in particular has failed to put any money where its climate rhetoric is."
"Yet the opportunity is not irrevocably lost; the pledging conference does not have to be the end of the road," Daniel added. "We wait to see if COP28 unlocks the ambition the world needs and deserves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular