Protesters at World Bank meetings in IstanbulThis week's World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings brought bedlam to the streets of Istanbul, with Turkish socialist groups and trade unions protesting the mere presence of the two institutions and Turkish police in riot gear responding with tear gas.

The ongoing global economic crisis dominated the proceedings in Istanbul. But with the Copenhagen climate talks just two months away climate activists made an effort to get one issue that has been bubbling for years onto the agenda -- much to the dismay of World Bank staffers.

At a press conference, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Federation in Turkey noted that the World Bank continues to invest far more in fossil fuels than in renewable energy [PDF], pointing out that from 2007 to 2009 the Bank doled out, on average, three times more public money for climate destroying fossil fuel investments than for environmentally sustainable, climate smart renewables.

As they spoke, a handful of World Bank staffers attempted to sabotage the message. Jamal Saghir, the Bank's Director for Energy, Transport, and Water, was on his feet interrupting the speakers and disavowing the veracity of their investment figures, while other World Bank spinmeisters handed out press releases touting the Bank’s clean energy numbers. I've been to quite a few of these public bank events in the past, but have never witnessed this kind of flak attack before. Notably, NGOs are not allowed into World Bank convened press conferences during the meetings.

The reaction by World Bank staff can be easily explained. The Bank is -- after all these years -- doing well on clean energy. In fact, the numbers presented by Greenpeace and WWF Turkey show that in 2009, for the first time, World Bank Group lending provided more overall clean energy loans than dirty energy loans. More than $3 billion went to energy efficiency and renewables projects, compared to $1.9 billion for fossil fuels.

However, when you take the energy efficiency projects, the so-called low-hanging fruit, out of the equation, you're left with a disturbing fact: for the fiscal years ending in June 2009, the Bank’s lending for actual power generation still favored fossil fuels over renewables ($1.9 billion versus $1.4 billion).

The World Bank remains heavily in denial about the coal, oil, and gas projects it continues to subsidize with low interest loans in the developing world, most often with devastating social, economic, and climate effects. Last year, for instance, the huge 4,000 megawatt coal-fired Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP) in Gujarat, India got $450 million from the Bank despite threadbare justifications and massive solar potential in the region. One World Bank press conference attendee acknowledged, in an email, that World Bank fossil fuel lending in 2007-2009 outstripped fossil fuel lending in 2006-2008 by 8.5 percent.

If statements by World Bank president Robert Zoellick are any indication, fossil fuel projects are still very much on the Bank's radar. Speaking at a town hall meeting in Istanbul, Zoellick declared developing countries “full partners” in the new, crisis-aware World Bank. The following morning he fleshed out this new equilibrium, saying that coal must be part of the developing world's energy solutions.

Similar clear sentiments have been heard from the Bank's head of environment, who described how the Bank is being “led” by developing countries to do more fossil fuel projects. This comment prompted Johann Frijns, of BankTrack and long-time World Bank watcher, to remark how these would be the same developing countries that “led” the Bank to inflict structural adjustment policies on them in the 80s and 90s.

The abiding sense is that while the World Bank is not entirely comfortable with its fossil fuel dealings, it's not entirely uncomfortable either. The good news is that the Bank is recruiting for a “renewables specialist,” someone who can drive a culture change within the institution. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private lending arm of the World Bank, currently has two renewables specialists on staff. The IFC is responsible for a significant portion of energy lending and has funded major controversial projects such as the $4 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipepline, a project whose pro-development billing has been found seriously wanting.

Pressure from shareholders may be the best hope for changing the World Bank’s lending policies. As the biggest donor, the U.S. government has the loudest voice on the World Bank board, and it is already making noises.

U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has said that if the Bank wants a significant replenishment of funds it will have to improve its governance, transparency, and ease off on the promotion of anti-worker practices. The Obama administration talked about killing fossil fuels subsidies once and for all in the lead up to last month’s Pittsburgh G20 Summit, and some positive, albeit vague, language emerged about phasing out "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption."

Environmental NGOs around the world are united on the issue, and find it hard to fathom why developing countries should be burdened -- via the World Bank and other similar public mutilateral banks -- with the worst of climate destroying technology rather than the best of renewable energy. 

The World Bank has its sights set on administering the post-Copenhagen climate financing funds. But its intensely mixed investment record ought to ensure that world leaders, especially those in developing countries, will bar the World Bank from taking control of that massive global lending program.

Related Links:

Reparations for Climate Chaos

Obama to propose ending fossil fuel subsidies in Pittsburgh?

Report: Climate change will bring big problems for small number of countries

Remember when the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund were constantly making global headlines for their fierce opposition from people's movements around the world?

Well, international Finance Institutions (including the World Bank) are rearing their ugly heads again -- this time with the U.N. as their vehicle.

Today, more than 50 social movements, trade unions, environmental groups, and NGOs from 17 countries issued a statement at the United Nations in Bangkok, where UNFCCC climate negotiations move into their fifth day.

The groups, which include several large international networks, said that rich countries should acknowledge their historical responsibility and the “ecological and climate debts” they owe to the Global South countries. “Deep, drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, through domestic measures is part of reparations,” the statement said. “They took much more than their fair share of atmospheric space, and in the process denied the people of developing countries -- the people of the South -- their rightful share. They must give it back.”

And they're right. As colleagues here in Bangkok talk about their newly-homeless families from the floods earlier this week in the Philippines, it is undeniable that the economic prosperity of the North is the gift-that-keeps-on-giving to the South -- this time around in the form of devastating climate change. Tom Pickens from Friends of the Earth described it like having a fancy four course meal in an expensive restaurant -- and then forcing someone walking by on the street outside to pay.

Reparations for these debts, according to Fabrina Furtado from Jubilee South, also include the “complete restoration of territories and ecosystems, reconstruction of basic infrastructure, recovery of social rights, and the restoration of the well being of the peoples of the South.”

Reparations must come from public sources.

The groups decried alleged attempts by Annex 1 (Northern) countries to “avoid taking full responsibility” for the consequences of their excessive emissions. In their statement, groups expressed strong opposition to giving any role in climate finance or climate programs to the World Bank, regional development banks and other international financial institutions – and emphasized the need for “a new global fund.”

These views are similar to those of the G77 plus China group, a bloc of more than 130 developing countries in the climate negotiations that considers the World Bank inappropriate for channeling developed countries’ financial obligations under the Convention -- largely because of its undemocratic and unaccountable governance structure.

The group’s critique of the World Bank and related financial institutions goes even further. Elena Gerebizza of the Italian NGO Campaign for the Reform of the World Bank said, “The World Bank and other international financial institutions are in large part responsible for the current economic, financial and climate crises. We cannot expect them to play a positive role nor to contribute to real solutions.” “On the contrary,” she added, “these institutions have been pushing false solutions, such as the expansion of the carbon market, which increase financial instability and take away space for serious thinking about real solutions for the climate crisis.”

Whew. United States, ready to listen yet?

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Where is all the damn climate data?

UK Guardian: “Scientists must stop sanitising their message”

According to a leaked letter, the Obama administration is set to propose ending fossil fuel subsidies next week at the Pittsburgh G20. The letter, authored by Michael Froman who is an Obama advisor on international economic affairs, calls on the G20 to eliminate all fossil fuel and electricity subsidies, as a "logical step in combating global climate change."

Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is a great idea, if it's done right.  This is certainly the right time, but the G20 is likely not the right place.

In general, it's so obvious, you can't really believe it hasn't happened sooner.  With all the hoopla about cap and trade, carbon offsets, and parts per million, wouldn't a good place to start be to stop supporting big oil and dirty coal with our tax dollars?  We can then use that money to finance a transition to clean energy -- both in the U.S. and globally. 

The principle is simple and clear: You can't really say you're committed to the fight against climate change if you're still funding oil and coal.  If you're in a hole, stop digging.  Many global leaders including U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Sir Nicholas Stern, Al Gore, and John Browne (the former Chief Executive of BP) have all spoken out against the ongoing practice of subsidizing fossil fuels with public funds.  Obama campaigned on the idea, and the administration has already proposed eliminating some domestic subsidies in the 2010 budget.

But the reality, is, as usual, stickier.  In the U.S., calls for subsidy removal tend to be answered by the oil industry and their allies with dire predictions of rising gas prices and consumer pain thus leading to unemployed politicians.  This is because the poor oil industry couldn't possibly have anything less than record profits, and they'll continue to either use our tax money to do it, or they'll jack up prices on us.  In other businesses involving addiction, this is called a protection racket.

This explains why the Obama proposal for subsidy removal in the U.S. is only partial at best, and also why it is gathering dust, not steam, in Congress.

In Pittsburgh next week, the Obama administration is apparently going to propose that the G20 eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.  What is a fossil fuel subsidy?   Simply put, it is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.  There are a lot of activities under this simple definition -- tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things.

Generally, subsidies are either on the production side (making the cost of production cheaper), or the consumption side (making the price of fuel cheaper to the consumer). In the U.S. and the rest of the industrialized world, we generally have production subsidies, which also serve as corporate welfare to the oil and coal industry who return the favor with lavish campaign contributions.  But in the developing world, consumption subsidies, which make access to energy and fuel affordable to the poor, are far more common.

It is these consumption side subsidies in the developing world that the OECD the IEA, and now perhaps the Obama administration have been focused on as market distortions.  True, excluding the military and wars for oil, they are the largest subsidies -- on the order of $200 billion annually.  However, the intent of these subsidies is generally not to increase consumption of fossil fuels per se -- rather it's usually simply to help make access to energy and transport affordable to the poor.

This is not the place to start leveling the playing field for clean energy. Like raising prices on U.S. consumers, it's likely to provoke a backlash in developing countries, ensuring gridlock for years to come.

A better idea would be eliminating international subsidies via institutions like the World Bank, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation -- all of which are supported by U.S. tax dollars, all of which gave billions last year to the fossil fuel industry, and all of which could be important sources of public funds for clean energy.

These institutions actually use our tax dollars to build infrastructure for fossil fuel extraction and use in the developing world. So, if we don't end this practice first, we're essentially saying to the rest of the world that we'll use our public funds to support Exxon, Chevron, and Shell to build carbon intensive infrastructure in the developing world, but we'd like the developing world to remove the subsidies that make use of that infrastructure affordable to its population. 

Fighting climate change -- and remaking the global economy to run on clean energy -- is going to take money.  And the U.S., Europe, and others in the developed world, which have caused the problem, are going to have to ante up if we expect others to chip in. Conservative estimates of the need for public money alone from the industrialized North to pay for a global clean energy transition and the costs of adaptation to climate change run in the area of $200 billion annually.

Towards that end, Europe has put $21 billion on the table.  That, sadly, is it.  Nothing so far from the U.S..  Nothing from anywhere else in the developed world.  To the cry for the need for money to stop climate change globally, the answer has mostly been the sound of crickets.

Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry continues to pull in at least $67 billion in production subsidies from the rich countries around the world.  That's more than three times more than the U.S. and others have put up to fight climate change internationally.

What was that about market distortions?

Great, let's end fossil fuel subsidies.  Absolutely, we must find money for international climate finance.  But if Obama and others focus first on consumption subsidies the motives look less like fiscal responsibility and a stable climate, and more like a finger pointing exercise or negotiating tactic designed to show that the developing world has plenty of funds available to adapt to climate change and invest in clean energy, if only they would stop making energy affordable for their populations.

It shifts blame for the looming potential failure in Copenhagen to China, Russia, India, and others, and away from the U.S. and Europe.  If that's the point, it might work well.

Originally posted on Price of Oil.

Related Links:

World Bank can’t wean itself off fossil fuel lending

Reparations for Climate Chaos

Wrapping up Climate Week, G20 Outcome & on to Bangkok

Here's one way to break down the effects of fiercer storm surges that will be wrought by climate change:

World Bank economists reached these conclusions in a new draft report [PDF] that assesses the effects sea-level rise and more intense storms are likely to have if climate change continues unchecked. The report, by the researchers on the World Bank’s Energy and Environment team, combined climate prediction models with information on coastal population, coastal GDP, wetlands, agricultural lands, and other factors.

Like other climate-change studies, this one found disruption will be the most severe in low-income, developing nations. The countries most vulnerable to land loss include Namibia, Guinea, El Salvador, and Yemen, it found. Displacement would be the most dramatic in Djibouti, Yemen, Togo, El Salvador, and Mozambique.

In the run-up to international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December, the report underscores the importance of deciding who will pay to help poorer coastal countries adapt. A proposal last week from U.S. climate negotiators acknowledged the same—that climate action will require not just curbing emissions but also a lot of money to help adjust to the effects that are already coming.

To be clear, the World Bank report focuses only on sea-level rise and storm surges, not on other effects of climate change like shfits in temperature and overall precipation. It acknowledges there is some scientific uncertainty about whether climate change will cause more intense storms, but it leans heavily on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings:

The authors, drawing on a range of computer model projects, assert a “probability greater than 66 percent” that continued warming of the ocean surface will lead to tropical cycles with greater intensity, higher peak wind speeds, and heaver precipitation.

For getting a sense of the varied ways climate change will play out around the world, the report is worth a skim [PDF]. So is this ClimateWire story unpacking the findings.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

ISTANBUL -- Fresh water and money have one thing in common: Their mismanagement has left billions of people without ready access to either, according to policymakers, non-governmental agencies and activists attending the World Water Forum here this week.

AquaFed's Gerard Payen (Courtesy U.N.)

It was one of the few things all parties seem to agree on; who is responsible for that mismanagement and what should be done about it is where the attendees part ways.

A United Nations report, Water in a Changing World, released here today, spreads the blame around, chiding "water sector leaders," including government ministers, private businesses and civil society groups, for failing to take action.

"Management of the world's water resources requires reliable information about the state of the resource and how it is changing in response to external drivers such as climate change and water and land use," the report states. "There is little sharing of hydrologic data, due largely to limited physical access to data, policy and security issues; lack of agreed protocols for sharing; and commercial considerations. This hampers regional and global projects that have to build on shared datasets for scientific and applications-oriented purposes."

The result for the world's freshwater supply is "bleak," the report concludes.

In Africa, poverty reduction efforts are rarely coordinated with water policy or take into account wise management of water resources, says the UN report, despite findings of a strong correlation between investment in water infrastructure and economic growth. In many developing countries, public utilities do not do well because of low motivation, poor management, inadequate cost recovery and political interference," states the report.

Gérard Payen, president of AquaFed, an international federation of private water companies, and an adviser on water issues to the U.N Secretary General, shifts much of the blame on governments. "There is plenty of water on the planet," says Payen. "Where increasing uses or climate change create scarcity, strong political will and commitment are needed to allocate and manage water satisfactorily."

Three billion people -- nearly one-half of the world's population -- have no access to tap water in their home or in their village. That means they must carry water every day or pay high prices for delivery. One of the reasons for that, says Payen, is governments' poor allocation of water between agriculture, industry and domestic uses.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based group of 30 relatively prosperous nations, has taken a similar line, saying that integrated water-resources management is needed to better allocate water between agriculture, other uses and environmental needs.

Maude Barlow, Council of Canadians national chairperson and senior adviser on water to the president of the U.N. General Assembly, agrees that mismanagement is to blame. But Barlow, who led activists here protesting the commoditization of water, blames private businesses and governments.

Water management has also been given short shrift by economic stimulus packages launched by the United States, China and Korea and other countries, says Angel Gurría, secretary general of the OECD. "The green is being stressed but not the blue," he says. "Particularly for water-saving, shovel-ready projects" to repair aged and damaged water pipelines. The United Nations says the total cost of replacing aging water supply and sanitation infrastructure in industrial countries could be as high as $200 billion per year.

Up to 20 percent of water in the developed world is lost due to leakage; in the developing world, it is as high as 70 percent, he says.

Likewise, Jamal Saghir, director of energy, transport and water at the World Bank, says there are insignificant funds earmarked for water investment in the stimulus packages of the United States and other countries responding to the economic crisis.

The World Water Forum concludes on Sunday.

Ferguson is a freelance journalist based in Arlington, Mass.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

Salvadoran mudslides: A plea for climate change solutions and holistic water policy

WASHINGTON—The World Bank said Thursday it has approved $1.3 billion for environmental and climate projects in Brazil, focused on fighting deterioration of the Amazon rain forest and renewable energy sources.

The World Bank said its board of directors approved Thursday the 1.3 billion dollar loan to the Brazilian government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in support of pro-environment efforts.

The program is aimed at “supporting Brazil’s ongoing efforts to improve its environmental management system and integrate sustainability concerns in the development agenda of key sectors such as forest management, water and renewable energy,” the Washington-based development lender said in a statement.

The initiative also was intended to integrate the South American giant’s climate change agenda across sectors, it said.

The loan will be disbursed in two installments: $800 million immediately and $500 million on condition the program meets evaluation criteria through 2010.

“This will promote the sustainable management of agricultural lands, forests and water resources; reduce deforestation in the Amazon; reduce the environmental degradation of land, water and other resources which are key determinants of the well-being of the poor; and promote renewable energy,” the 185-nation institution said.

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Related Links:

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

A $4 billion push to make affordable housing green

Industrialized countries have promised to put more than $6.1 billion in the World Bank's Climate Investment Funds, which aim to boost clean technologies and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in developing countries. On Friday, the United States pledged $2 billion over three years; Britain will chip in $1.47 billion and Japan $1.2 billion, with contributions from Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland making up the rest. Two trust funds will be created under the Climate Investment Fund umbrella: The Clean Technology Fund will invest in projects that "contribute to the demonstration, deployment, and transfer of low-carbon technologies" and "have a significant potential for long-term greenhouse-gas savings"; the Strategic Climate Fund will "serve as an overarching fund for various programs to test innovative approaches to climate change." The World Bank will announce the first beneficiaries of the funds in early 2009.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

The World Bank has pulled funding from a 663-mile oil pipeline in Chad and Cameroon, having lost its gamble that the project would funnel oil wealth into poverty reduction instead of the pockets of corrupt officials. The bank made the loan in 2000, with the stipulation that 72 percent of oil royalties be spent on schools, hospitals, and roads. Covering the decision, Grist wrote that opponents "say it would destroy sensitive rainforest, lead to oil spills, dislocate indigenous peoples, and line the pockets of corrupt African officials." Sure enough, the Chadian government failed to follow through on its end of the bargain, disseminating far less than promised and often funding shoddy or never-completed projects. President Idriss Déby continually tried to renegotiate the contract for more flexibility; much of the oil revenue was likely spent on the military. Environmentalists, who criticized the project from the get-go, say it's further evidence that the World Bank shouldn't be funding fossil fuels.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Related Links:

Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

The World Bank overstates its commitment to financing sustainability-minded projects in developing countries and should greatly improve its efforts, according to an internal review. Official estimates hold that the bank put $59 billion into environment-focused projects between 1990 and 2007; while the bank's coding system makes it difficult to figure out specifics, the Independent Evaluation Group review estimates that perhaps only $18.2 billion was allocated to projects at least 80 percent environmentally focused. In addition, the review says, long-run sustainability concerns are often given short shrift; good green intentions may not carried out on the ground; and administrative priorities and coordination ain't what they could be. Bank managers acknowledge flaws, but say official statistics don't tell the whole story. Regardless, the bank needs to step it up, says the evaluation group's Vinod Thomas: "It is clear now from the Amazon to India that if environmental sustainability is not raised as a priority then all bets are off."

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama?

Related Links:

Professor confessions

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Next to a busy train station in Buenos Aires, not far from the chic restaurants and condos getting all the attention these days, lies another world. Behind a gate is a long metal shed, once used to store trains. This is La Casa del Afectado Social y Ambiental -- literally, "the house of the enviro-socially affected." Here, amidst the bustle of traffic and commuters, hundreds of people on the flip side of the nation's renewed glitter are taking a stand.

It may have seemed like a good idea at the time: in 1983, on the Paraná River that forms part of the border between Argentina and Paraguay, the World Bank-funded Yacyretá Dam broke ground. One of the largest dams in the world, the Yacyretá eventually flooded 100,000 hectares of wilderness, displacing more than 80,000 people in both countries. It is still unfinished, and has cost more than $12 billion -- well over its original $2.4 billion budget -- while producing far less power than projected. While he was still president of Argentina, Carlos Menem dubbed the 70-kilometer long dam a "monument to corruption." Patrick McCully, executive director of International Rivers, calls Yacyretá "one of the world's most absurdly destructive dams."

Those displaced by the resulting reservoir -- which reached its full extent in 1998 -- were promised resettlement, but this often amounted to unsuitable housing far from anywhere they could practice their livelihoods. The affected joined a sad international brotherhood: the World Bank has funded more than 500 large dams in nearly 100 countries since its inception in 1944, displacing an estimated 10 million people -- the majority of whom, according to the Bank itself, never regain their standard of living.

In 1996, communities displaced by the Yacyretá project filed a complaint with the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. Three years later, 1,200 affected families filed a case in Argentina's Federal Court against the Entidad Binacional Yacyretá, the body that operates the dam.

The cases have, predictably, dragged on. Last year, hundreds of displaced people from the north traveled more than 500 miles to Buenos Aires to make their voices heard in protest. Around 400 of them took up residence as squatters in this abandoned shed. With no options at home -- and no homes -- they are eking out a living picking up the pieces in the booming urban economy: working as freelance "cartineras" (cardboard collectors) while they wait, and wait, and wait for justice.

Related Links:

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

World Bank can’t wean itself off fossil fuel lending

Reparations for Climate Chaos