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
In a World at War, the Biggest Loser Is Climate
Reinvesting just 15% of global military spending, roughly $387 billion, would be more than enough to cover the annual costs of climate adaptation in developing countries. The money exists. The will does not.
May 20, 2026
Last week, the British government quietly informed the United Nation's Green Climate Fund that it would halve the contribution it pledged just two years ago, not because the climate crisis has eased, but because it is spending more on weapons. The move was framed as a "hugely difficult decision," not ideological, and necessary to deliver what United Kingdom Foreign Minister Yvette Cooper called "the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War." The planet, apparently, can wait.
It cannot.
The UK's retreat from climate finance is not some isolated budget decision. It is part of a choice being made across the Global North: to rearm, to retreat from development commitments, and to leave the countries least responsible for the climate crisis to deal with its worst consequences on their own.
Global military expenditure reached $2.887 trillion in 2025, pushing the global military burden to 2.5% of GDP, its highest level since 2009. Europe's alone surged 14% to $864 billion, the highest level ever recorded for the continent. Meanwhile, the UN's own analysis found that reinvesting just 15% of global military spending, roughly $387 billion, would be more than enough to cover the annual costs of climate adaptation in developing countries. The money exists. The will does not.
More conflict and more military spending will only deepen the crisis and make millions more people vulnerable to it.
The UK's Green Climate Fund cut does not happen in a vacuum; the US has refused to deliver any further money to the GCF under President Donald Trump and has also given up its seat on the fund's board. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, international development assistance fell by 23.1% in 2025, the steepest annual decline on record, with the United States slashing its aid budget by 57%, Germany by 17%, and France and the UK by 11% each.
The countries that industrialized on the back of fossil fuels, with the highest historical emissions and the highest per capita carbon footprints, are the ones least bothered by any of this.
And yet for the Global South, the signal being sent today is unmistakable: The nations least responsible for the climate catastrophe bearing down on them will have to bear its consequences largely alone, watching the world burn while the architects of that burning pivot to missiles and military budgets. The prospect of just and equitable climate finance from the developed world is beginning to look not merely uncertain, but futile.
The same wars that are killing climate finance are generating record profits elsewhere. Oil and gas companies' profits are soaring as the Iran conflict continues. Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and TotalEnergies are projected to make $2,967 a second in profits in 2026, nearly $37 million more per day than in 2025, with total projected profits across the six companies reaching approximately $94 billion for the year. None of that windfall is going toward the energy transition. BP has slashed planned investment in renewable energy and increased oil and gas spending, Shell has watered down its 2030 climate targets, ExxonMobil has cut its planned low-carbon investment by a third, and TotalEnergies has declined to adopt a transition plan aligned with 1.5°C of warming.
If a handful of fossil fuel corporations are posting billions in profits in a single year, profits made possible by geopolitical instability, then holding them liable through regulation and taxation is not radical but logical. Windfall profit taxes on fossil fuel companies, long discussed and rarely enacted, could generate precisely the kind of revenue that developed governments claim they no longer have for climate finance.
A February 2026 report by Climate Action Network Europe shows the framework already exists, recommending a differentiated corporate tax on fossil fuel profits with revenues recycled directly into the energy transition and international climate finance. Oxfam makes the same case, calling for a Rich Polluter Profit Tax and an equity-based road map that reflects the historical responsibility and financial capacity of different states. The United States and Europe built their wealth on fossil fuels. Many countries in the Global South remain dependent on them not by choice, but by circumstance. Demanding they exit on the same timeline is neither fair nor realistic.
The tools and the arguments exist. What is missing is political will, and the Global South cannot afford to keep waiting for it. The path forward lies in demanding structural reform of the international tax regime that allows fossil fuel super profits and billionaire fortunes to escape accountability; of the debt architecture that forces climate-vulnerable nations to choose between servicing loans and financing adaptation; and of the COP process itself, which has too long allowed wealthy nations to treat climate finance pledges as suggestions rather than obligations.
So, while the world heats up and vulnerable countries face worsening heatwaves, floods, and disasters, while thousands lose lives and livelihoods, one thing is becoming painfully certain: More conflict and more military spending will only deepen the crisis and make millions more people vulnerable to it. The Global South did not start these wars. It should not be made to pay for them, not with its people, its economies, or its climate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Most Popular