November, 11 2020, 11:00pm EDT

Failing to Deliver Strong Commitments, Civil Society Groups Call the Finance in Common Summit a Wasted Opportunity
Public Development Banks now have a great collective responsibility to deliver concrete roadmaps and actions to make sure the announcements do not remain an empty shell.
WASHINGTON
The Finance in Common Summit, which saw over 400 public banks meeting to discuss global challenges, fell short today on delivering concrete and measurable commitments on how they would halt the climate and ecological crises. The Summit had a unique opportunity to outline transformational pledges based on common principles to stop harmful spending and set the world on track to build back better, yet the announcements made in the past two days show that there is a glaring lack of political will, making it another wasted opportunity.
As the world continues to grapple with multiple crises, with record-breaking Covid19 cases in many countries and deadly climate impacts continuing unabated, the time for empty words on paper is long over. We need clear plans on how public money will go towards solutions that avert the climate crisis, end poverty and inequality, integrate human rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples into development projects and uplift those most vulnerable to compounding vulnerabilities, including women and girls.
In the run up to COP26, public banks must now step up their actions and ambition to fully align with the Paris Agreement, including by putting an end to all fossil fuel finance and scale up adaptation action, and meet the Sustainable Development Goals.
QUOTES
"Finance in Common has opened a pathway for public development banks to collaborate but urgent, ambitious, concrete action is needed. There is no excuse for the continued funding of billions of dollars in coal, gas or oil projects. This must stop now. A just recovery from Covid-19, must include more public money invested in sustainable, renewable energy that ensures everyone around the world has energy access. The multilateral development banks promised to align their lending with the Paris Agreement 5 years ago and yet a number of them did not even sign the declaration at Finance in Common. They must now, without further delay, turn commitment into action and lead the way for other public development banks and private finance to follow." Sophie Richmond, Big Shift Global Coordinator
"Public Development Banks must devote their sizeable financial resources and influence to building a just, equitable, inclusive and sustainable future for all. If not you, who will do it? Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, limiting global warming to 1.5degC by fully implementing the Paris Agreement, and protecting nature should be the key drivers of action on the part of Public Development Banks over the coming decade. We stand ready to work with you so that these guiding lights and these ethical approaches become a reality. It's up to you to be on the right side of History, and seldom before have these words rung so true." Iara Pietricovsky, President of Forus
"Many fine words, but very few concrete commitments. The Finance in Common Summit fell short to demonstrate how public development banks would take the urgent and concrete actions needed to address the intertwined health, climate and biodiversity crises. Much more ambitious commitments, starting by ending all fossil fuel finance, are needed by COP26 if public development banks are serious about aligning their activities with the Paris Agreement's objectives. This also applies to France, host of the summit: it would be an international disgrace if France adopted the current government's proposal to allow export finance for gas projects for 15 more years, until 2035." Lucile Dufour, International Policy Adviser at Climate Action Network France
"Getting public finance institutions out of fossil fuels is an urgent task. This is the time for these publicly funded entities to make the right call and make sure that the resources available will be spent to create the future we need. We have a historic chance to drive real, transformative change and build back better in line with climate and sustainable goals. Real leadership from public banks would send a strong political signal towards the private sector to help build momentum towards a successful COP26 in 2021. With a rampant climate crisis and so much at stake for people's jobs and health, simply paying lip service to the need for a just recovery and a low-carbon transition won't cut it." May Boeve, 350.org Executive Director
"Finance in Common has opened a pathway for public development banks to collaborate but urgent, ambitious, concrete action is needed. There is no excuse for the continued funding of billions of dollars in coal, gas or oil projects. This must stop now. A just recovery from Covid-19, must include more public money invested in sustainable, renewable energy that ensures everyone around the world has energy access. The multilateral development banks promised to align their lending with the Paris Agreement 5 years ago and yet a number of them did not even sign the declaration at Finance in Common. They must now, without further delay, turn commitment into action and lead the way for other public development banks and private finance to follow." Sophie Richmond, Big Shift Global Coordinator
"Finance in Common is the beginning of a new era of multilateralism for the multilateral financial system - and for the global ecosystem of public banks large and small. These banks hold the key to a greener, better, more resilient and more just recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, and this summit is about together committing to deliver that. These institutions have immense power to shape the direction of development in Global North and South, and today they will commit to make that development climate-safe and sustainable, aligned with the Paris Agreement and other international goals. The key challenge now is to turn this into a lasting institution, bringing together all public banks large and small, all export credit agencies, all Multilateral Development Banks, including those that were not able to sign up to the declaration today, to get them to act as one. All public banks for one planet, one planet for all public banks, to paraphrase Alexandre Dumas." Sonia Dunlop, Senior Policy Advisor at E3G
"Finance in Common failed completely to address the legacy of PDBs supporting projects linked to human rights abuses affecting thousands if not millions the world over. With no real commitments to community-led development, respect for indigenous peoples' rights, protection of defenders raising their voice around PDB-financed activities or a rights-based approach more generally, any talk of inclusive development is just that: talk." Mark Fodor, Defenders in Development campaign Coordinator at the Coalition for Human Rights in Development
"In the Joint Declaration, the signing development banks state they aim to develop strategies to align their financial flows with the Paris Agreement by the UN Climate Summit at the end of next year. They also want to consider ways of reducing their investments in fossil fuels. Progress will have to be assessed then. By the UN climate summit in 2021, progressive public development banks should lead the way by forming a coalition that no longer finances fossil fuel-related investments." Sophie Fuchs, Policy Advisor at Germanwatch
"Developing countries are battling the Covid-19 health and economic emergency while facing a debt crisis that has left health systems vastly underfunded and Zambia on the verge of default. Yet public development banks have this week failed to step up and help address this debilitating debt burden. For there to be any hope of debt sustainability in the future, public development banks must play a responsible role now by cancelling their share of countries' debt, which is crippling governments' capacity to respond to the pandemic. Debt cancellation is essential for a just, green and feminist recovery from the Covid-19 crisis. Without it, there is no sustainable path to stability and development in dozens of the world's poorest countries." Soren Ambrose, Fiscal justice policy advisor at ActionAid
"Finance in Common provided an ideal opportunity for public development banks to stake out a roadmap for meaningful climate action towards COP26 in 2021, as well as raise the bar on other important issues, such as human rights. But a lack of ambition and timebound commitments make the summit's Joint Declaration next to meaningless. It is particularly disappointing that multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, refused to make their engagement official by signing the declaration. The next 12 months, building up to the next Summit and COP26, will be critical for rectifying these mistakes." Petra Kjell, Campaigns Manager at Recourse
"Without a concrete commitment to end public finance for fossil fuels this Summit can't be considered a success for climate action. It's too late for vague words about phasing out one fossil fuel at a time. Our research shows that the oil, gas, and coal in developed fields and mines that exist now would be enough to blow our carbon budget for 1.5oC or 2oC. There is no room for new fossil fuel funding from public development banks. But there are bright spots: banks like the European Investment Bank and Swedfund have already banned oil and gas financing, and President-elect Joe Biden has committed to stop financing dirty energy at home and abroad. The EIB said it is ready to cooperate with others in this area. Between now and the UN climate negotiations, COP26 in Glasgow next year, public finance institutions must act on this call and work together to stop funding fossils." Laurie van der Burg, Senior Campaigner at Oil Change International
"We are witnessing a big shift in the appetite for fossil fuels especially coal across lower and middle income countries across Asia. The US election results are also ushering a revival of the Paris agreement in the international system. Therefore it comes as an absolute shock that the ADB with US, Japanese, European and the AIIB with China as major shareholders are not committing to this critical and immediate declaration. This begs to question whether the ADB and the AIIB management systems have absolute autonomy to craft their own positions on climate and energy investments? Are management representatives of ADB and AIIB more powerful in dictating energy investments in Asia than even their respective donor governments and borrowing members?" Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director at Forum on ADB
"The global coalition of PDBs formed at this summit is committed to deliver a work program and accountability framework, building on their Joint Declaration. Words now have to be put into action. At the same time, the mandate, policies and operations of PDBs have to be changed to deliver in the public interest, instead of reproducing a problematic development model. The international community must hold PDBs accountable for the good intentions delivered today." Jean Saldanha, Director of Eurodad
"Public Development Banks have a great responsibility in making sure that investments directly benefit communities. We urge them to stop funding fossil fuel projects, and place human rights, racial and climate justice at the core of their actions. They must lead the way and initiate a deep and rapid shift in the way they operate, in line with a Just Recovery for all. But they are still lagging behind." Clemence Dubois, France Team Leader at 350.org
"We need to restructure financing for development so that it builds resilient societies, responds to communities' needs and protects ecosystems. The current development model is not fit for the world we want, too often we are bullied by those who put profit before people. This has to change. Finance in Common has started a process for PDBs to take bold and ambitious action to build a future in common, and meaningful participation of civil society can help them deliver. This is the kind of leadership we need from Public Development Banks." Sarah Strack, Director at Forus
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Watch 60 Minutes 'Inside CECOT' Segment Blocked by CBS News Chief Bari Weiss
"Watch fast, before Corus gets a call from Paramount Skydance."
Dec 22, 2025
A social media user on Monday shared at least part of a "60 Minutes" segment about a prison in El Salvador—where the Trump administration sent hundreds of migrants—after CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss controversially blocked its release.
"Canadians, behold! (And Americans on a VPN.) The canceled '60 Minutes' story has appeared on the Global TV app—almost certainly by accident," Jason Paris wrote on Bluesky, sharing a link to download a nearly 14-minute video of the segment, which has since been uploaded here.
The segment is titled "Inside CECOT," the Spanish abbreviation for El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center.
"Watch fast, before Corus gets a call from Paramount Skydance," Paris added. Corus Entertainment owns Global TV. Paramount and Skydance merged earlier this year, after winning approval from the Trump administration. Weiss, a right-wing pundit, was then appointed to her position.
In a leaked email, "60 Minutes" correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi wrote that "Bari Weiss spiked our story," and "in my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Stop Permitting Talks Over Trump's 'Reckless and Vindictive Assault' on Wind Power
"By sabotaging US energy innovation and killing American jobs, the Trump administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform," said Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich.
Dec 22, 2025
The top Democrats on a pair of key US Senate panels ended negotiations to reform the federal permitting process for energy projects in response to the Trump administration's Monday attack on five offshore wind projects along the East Coast.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-NM) began their joint statement by thanking the panels' respective chairs, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), "for their good-faith efforts to negotiate a permitting reform bill that would have lowered electricity prices for all Americans."
"There was a deal to be had that would have taken politics out of permitting, made the process faster and more efficient, and streamlined grid infrastructure improvements nationwide," the Democrats said. "But any deal would have to be administered by the Trump administration. Its reckless and vindictive assault on wind energy doesn't just undermine one of our cheapest, cleanest power sources, it wrecks the trust needed with the executive branch for bipartisan permitting reform."
Earlier Monday, the US Department of the Interior halted Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind off Virginia, Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind off New York, Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Connecticut, and Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts, citing radar interference concerns.
Governors and members of Congress from impacted states, including Whitehouse and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), condemned the announcement, with Whitehouse pointing to a recent legal battle over the project that would help power Rhode Island.
"It's hard to see the difference between these new alleged radar-related national security concerns and the radar-related national security allegations the Trump administration lost in court, a position so weak that they declined to appeal their defeat," he said.
This looks more like the kind of vindictive harassment we have come to expect from the Trump administration than anything legitimate.
— Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (@whitehouse.senate.gov) December 22, 2025 at 12:59 PM
Later, he and Heinrich said that "by sabotaging US energy innovation and killing American jobs, the Trump administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform. It will own the higher electricity prices, increasingly decrepit infrastructure, and loss of competitiveness that result from its reckless policies."
"The illegal attacks on fully permitted renewable energy projects must be reversed if there is to be any chance that permitting talks resume," they continued. "There is no path to permitting reform if this administration refuses to follow the law."
Reporting on Whitehouse and Heinrich's decision, the Hill reached out to Capito and Lee's offices, as well as the Interior Department, whose spokesperson, Alyse Sharpe, "declined to comment beyond the administration's press release, which claimed the leases were being suspended for national security reasons."
Lee responded on social media with a gif:
Although the GOP has majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans don't have enough senators to get most bills to a final vote without Democratic support.
The Democratic senators' Monday move was expected among observers of the permitting reform debate, such as Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman, who wrote before their statement came out that "Democrats in Congress are almost certainly going to take this action into permitting reform talks... after squabbling over offshore wind nearly derailed a House bill revising the National Environmental Policy Act last week."
That bill, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, was pilloried by green groups after its bipartisan passage. It's one of four related pieces of legislation that the House advanced last week. The others are the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, Power Plant Reliability Act, and Reliable Power Act.
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group's Climate Program, blasted all four bills as "blatant handouts to the fossil fuel and mining industries" that would do "nothing to help American families facing staggering energy costs and an escalating climate crisis."
"We need real action to lower energy bills for American families and combat the climate crisis," he argued. "The best policy response would be to fast-track a buildout of renewable energy, storage, and transmission—an approach that would not just make energy more affordable and sustainable, but create US jobs and bolster competitiveness with China, which is rapidly outpacing the US on the energy technologies of the future.
Instead, Arkush said, congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump "are shamefully pushing legislation that would only exacerbate the energy affordability crisis and further entrench the dirty, dangerous, and unaffordable energy of the past."
Keep ReadingShow Less
War Crime, Murder, or Both? Dems Demand DOJ Probe Into Hegseth Order to Kill Shipwrecked Sailors
"Giving a general order to kill any survivors constitutes a war crime," wrote Reps. Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu. "Outside of war, the killing of unarmed, helpless men clinging to wreckage in open water is simply murder."
Dec 22, 2025
Making clear that the Trump administration's "entire Caribbean operation," which has killed more than 100 people in boats that the US military has bombed, "appears to be unlawful," two Democrats on a powerful House committee on Monday called on the Department of Justice to investigate one particular attack that's garnered accusations of a war crime—or murder.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi four weeks after it was reported that in the military's first strike on a boat on September 2, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered service members to "kill everybody"—prompting a second "double-tap" strike to kill two survivors of the initial blast.
A retired general, United Nations experts, and former top military legal advisers are among those who have warned that Hegseth and the service members directly involved in the strike—as well as the other attacks on more than two dozen boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—may be liable for war crimes or murder.
Raskin and Lieu raised that concern directly to Bondi, writing: "Deliberately targeting incapacitated individuals constitutes a clear violation of the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, which expressly forbids attacks on persons rendered helpless by shipwreck. Such conduct would trigger criminal liability under the War Crimes Act if the administration claims it is engaged in armed conflict, or under the federal murder statute if no such conflict exists."
The administration has insisted it is attacking the boats as part of an effort to stop drug trafficking out of Venezuela, and has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels there, though international and domestic intelligence agencies have not identified the country as a significant source any drugs that flow into the US. As President Donald Trump has ordered the boat strikes, the administration has also been escalating tensions with Venezuela by seizing oil tankers, claiming to close its airspace, and demanding that President Nicolás Maduro leave power.
Critics from both sides of the aisle in Congress have questioned the claim that the bombed boats were a threat to the US, and Raskin and Lieu noted that the vessel attacked on September 2 in particular appeared to pose no threat, as it was apparently headed to Suriname, "not the United States, at the time it was destroyed."
"Deliberately targeting incapacitated individuals constitutes a clear violation of the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, which expressly forbids attacks on persons rendered helpless by shipwreck."
"Congress has never authorized military force against Venezuela; a boat moving towards Suriname does not pose a clear and present danger to the United States; and the classified legal memoranda the Trump administration has offered us to justify the attacks are entirely unpersuasive," wrote the lawmakers.
Raskin and Lieu emphasized that Hegseth's explanations of the September 2 strike in particular have been "shifting and contradictory."
"Secretary Hegseth has variously claimed that he missed the details of the September 2 strike because of the 'fog of war,' and that he actually left the room before any explicit order was given to kill the survivors," they wrote. "Later reporting suggests that he gave a general order to kill all passengers aboard ahead of the strike but delegated the specific order to kill survivors to a subordinate."
The facts that are known about the strike, as well as Hegseth's muddled claims, warrant a DOJ investigation, the Democrats suggested.
"Giving a general order to kill any survivors constitutes a war crime," they wrote. "Similarly, carrying out such an order also constitutes a war crime, and the Manual for Courts-Martial explicitly provides that 'acting pursuant to orders' is no defense 'if the accused knew the orders to be unlawful.' Outside of war, the killing of unarmed, helpless men clinging to wreckage in open water is simply murder. The federal criminal code makes it a felony to commit murder within the 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,' which is defined to include the 'high seas.' It is also a federal crime to conspire to commit murder."
Raskin and Lieu also emphasized that two memos from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) "do not—and cannot—provide any legal protection for the secretary’s conduct."
A 2010 OLC memo said the federal murder statute does not apply "when the target of a military strike is an enemy combatant in a congressionally authorized armed conflict," they noted. "In stark contrast, in the case of the Venezuelan boats, Congress has not authorized military force of any kind."
A new classified memo also suggested that “personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution," and claimed that "the president’s inherent constitutional authority in an undeclared 'armed conflict' will shield the entire chain of command from criminal liability."
The Democrats wrote, "Experts in criminal law, constitutional law, and the law of armed conflict find this sweeping, unsubstantiated claim implausible, at best."
They also noted that even the author of the George W. Bush administration's infamous "Torture Memo," conservative legal scholar John Woo, has said Hegseth's order on September 2 was clearly against the law.
"Attorney General Bondi, even those who condoned and defended torture in the name of America are saying that the Trump administration has violated both federal law and the law of war," wrote Raskin and Lieu. "We urge you to do your duty as this country’s chief law enforcement officer to investigate the secretary’s apparent and serious violations of federal criminal law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


