THIS week, a leaked draft of Germany’s proposed federal budget for 2027 revealed that the government there, already expected to fall short of its landmark commitment to provide €6 billion in climate funding to developing countries this year, has already written off that goal for next year, earmarking between €4.7 billion and €5.3 billion for climate action support in 2027. The development was just the latest in a string of actions rolling back climate efforts worldwide, part of a worrying trend that will have severe consequences in the future if it is not reversed.
In a related development, on June 30, the World Bank disclosed that it would “retire” its previously stated goal of ensuring that 45 percent of its funding would go to climate-related projects or projects with climate “co-benefits,” after buckling to intense pressure from Donald’s Trump regime. The United States is the World Bank’s largest shareholder and contributor, and thus holds effective veto power over bank policy and decisions. Under Trump, who has repeatedly declared that he considers the reality of climate change “a hoax,” the US government has aggressively sought to eliminate any climate-related expenditure or action from its own budget and policies, and even globally.
Although some World Bank officials expressed optimism that simply dropping the published 45-percent target would not necessarily change the sorts of projects the bank would continue to fund, it is difficult to see how the policy change would not result in less climate action financing. Quoted in a June 30 article by Devex, one World Bank insider said that “countries would be forced to find a way to accommodate the voodoo science of the United States” in trying to keep up with climate adaptation and mitigation goals, meaning that some initiatives would simply no longer be possible.
Even where funding for climate-related action has not been clearly reduced or eliminated, there has been an obvious shift in rhetoric away from topics such as climate action and sustainability. In a few instances, this has been deliberate. For example, the US state of Florida recently passed a state law banning Florida government units from adopting “net zero plans.” The law does not necessarily stop cities and counties from implementing energy transition and sustainability policies, but they can no longer refer to them as such.
The shift has also been noticed in politics. Several news articles and commentaries have been published in the past few weeks noting that, despite the Republican Party’s idiotic stand on climate change giving Democrats an easy way to gain an advantage in the upcoming US midterm elections — opinion polls consistently show a clear majority of American voters supporting climate action and policy — Democrats are engaging in “climate hushing,” steering policy conversations away from the topic.
Closer to home, observers have noted that the Asian Development Bank (ADB), headquartered here in Manila, has also toned down its emphasis on climate action. Last year, ADB was marketing itself as “Asia’s climate bank”; this year, that line has quietly been dropped. It has not changed the bank’s activities, and in fact, ADB has even increased its funding for climate-related projects, but they are no longer highlighted in that context, at least not to the extent they previously were.
Even within our government, references to climate action have noticeably diminished. At the same time, in recent weeks, there has been a growing volume of critical commentary about the impact of renewable energy development on other needs, such as food production and watershed protection.
The indications that “climate action” has fallen out of vogue are disturbing, because climate change is a scientific fact that, if not addressed in some way, will have dire consequences for human health, safety and progress. It simply cannot be wished away by not talking about it. On the other hand, it is a complex and somewhat abstract concept to the ordinary citizen, more concerned with whether or not he can afford to pay his electric bill, put gas in his car, and put food on his table. Exhorting people that paying extra costs and making sacrifices now to prevent problems in the future is a tough sell when there are more immediate, tangible concerns, even though the future problems may be far worse than any current discomfort.
The efforts to address the climate emergency should not stop. But if the messaging needs to be changed to allow them to continue without making people feel as though they are mortgaging the present for a hypothetical future, perhaps that is acceptable, if not exactly ideal.
