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
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


