To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Extinction Rebellion Cape Town activists protest outside a venue of the 2022 Africa Energy Week conference in Cape Town, South Africa, on October 18, 2022.
If the bank maintains its stance on gas, it risks perpetuating a neocolonial narrative by anchoring the continent in a fossil fuel-dependent development model that binds it to poverty and environmental degradation.
The conclusion of the World Bank Spring Meetings held in Washington D.C. in April has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped for a decisive pivot toward increased financing for renewable energy. The World Bank's enduring support for fossil gas investments starkly contrasts with the ongoing climate emergency, thus exacerbating the vulnerabilities and hardships faced by communities across Africa, compounding their development challenges.
Africa has been courted to produce natural gas in the guise of economic development, as proponents claim gas is a transition fuel capable of catalyzing long-term economic prosperity. This is a misguided and
dangerous assumption creating a missed opportunity for the World Bank to set the record straight.
If the World Bank maintains its stance on gas, it risks perpetuating a neocolonial narrative by anchoring Africa in a fossil fuel-dependent development model that binds the continent to poverty and environmental degradation. This approach not only stifles Africa's potential to harness its vast renewable resources for clean, affordable energy but also obstructs a path toward sustainable and equitable prosperity. It is imperative for Africa to leverage its renewable energy capacities to foster genuine development that benefits all.
The recent horrors witnessed in Mali, where more than 100 people were scorched to death in what was deemed as one of the deadliest heatwaves ever to sweep through the Sahel region, should be a wake-up call to the dangers of the climate crisis.
The World Bank bears a profound duty to eradicate energy poverty in Africa in ways that promote sustainable growth and equitable progress, contributing meaningfully to the global fight against climate change. Instead, the World Bank has created a finance system that has continued to lock Africa at the bottom of the food chain. As it stands, many African nations are positioned at the forefront of intense global energy conflicts, as major international players compete to secure resources to tackle the growing energy crisis. This pursuit to have Africa be the “gas station” for the world unfolds at a critical juncture when there is a proposal to reform the global financial architecture. The reforms currently under discussion amount to mere cosmetic changes—that have allowed over $1.2 Billion in direct financing for fossil fuel-related projects.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has clearly articulated that beyond the projects committed to as of 2021, there is no further necessity for investments in new fossil fuel supplies. The IEA's position is unambiguous: No new oil and gas fields are envisaged in their recommended pathway, nor are any new coal mines or extensions deemed necessary. Given this scientific consensus, one must question the rationale behind the continued pursuit of fossil fuels and the absence of a fossil fuel finance exclusion policy within the bank's operational framework. Furthermore, is the World Bank stance on fossil gas a clear sign that multilateral development banks have missed the mark on setting a blueprint on what true development looks like in Africa? The legitimate demand for Africa's development should not rationalize actions that ultimately entrench economic dependencies or risk the creation of assets that may soon be obsolete.
Over the decades, Africa's relationship with the World Bank has been steeped in the politics of debt. Loans from the World Bank, though framed as tools for development and economic growth, often carry stringent conditions. These conditions—ranging from economic restructuring to significant policy changes including adopting fossil gas as a transition fuel—may not always be congruent with the unique socioeconomic realities of each African nation, including their vulnerability to climatic shocks. The recent horrors witnessed in Mali, where more than 100 people were scorched to death in what was deemed as one of the deadliest heatwaves ever to sweep through the Sahel region, should be a wake-up call to the dangers of the climate crisis.
African economies have been locked at the bottom of the global value chain since colonial times, and the risk of stranded assets will only trap the continent in a cycle that could cause substantial declines in exporters' sovereign credit ratings, increasing their challenge in servicing existing debts that have crippled over half the continent's population.
The World Bank needs to think critically about its role in Africa's development. Massive growth in financial investment into renewable energy is required in Africa to address the severe underfinance the continent has suffered.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
The conclusion of the World Bank Spring Meetings held in Washington D.C. in April has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped for a decisive pivot toward increased financing for renewable energy. The World Bank's enduring support for fossil gas investments starkly contrasts with the ongoing climate emergency, thus exacerbating the vulnerabilities and hardships faced by communities across Africa, compounding their development challenges.
Africa has been courted to produce natural gas in the guise of economic development, as proponents claim gas is a transition fuel capable of catalyzing long-term economic prosperity. This is a misguided and
dangerous assumption creating a missed opportunity for the World Bank to set the record straight.
If the World Bank maintains its stance on gas, it risks perpetuating a neocolonial narrative by anchoring Africa in a fossil fuel-dependent development model that binds the continent to poverty and environmental degradation. This approach not only stifles Africa's potential to harness its vast renewable resources for clean, affordable energy but also obstructs a path toward sustainable and equitable prosperity. It is imperative for Africa to leverage its renewable energy capacities to foster genuine development that benefits all.
The recent horrors witnessed in Mali, where more than 100 people were scorched to death in what was deemed as one of the deadliest heatwaves ever to sweep through the Sahel region, should be a wake-up call to the dangers of the climate crisis.
The World Bank bears a profound duty to eradicate energy poverty in Africa in ways that promote sustainable growth and equitable progress, contributing meaningfully to the global fight against climate change. Instead, the World Bank has created a finance system that has continued to lock Africa at the bottom of the food chain. As it stands, many African nations are positioned at the forefront of intense global energy conflicts, as major international players compete to secure resources to tackle the growing energy crisis. This pursuit to have Africa be the “gas station” for the world unfolds at a critical juncture when there is a proposal to reform the global financial architecture. The reforms currently under discussion amount to mere cosmetic changes—that have allowed over $1.2 Billion in direct financing for fossil fuel-related projects.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has clearly articulated that beyond the projects committed to as of 2021, there is no further necessity for investments in new fossil fuel supplies. The IEA's position is unambiguous: No new oil and gas fields are envisaged in their recommended pathway, nor are any new coal mines or extensions deemed necessary. Given this scientific consensus, one must question the rationale behind the continued pursuit of fossil fuels and the absence of a fossil fuel finance exclusion policy within the bank's operational framework. Furthermore, is the World Bank stance on fossil gas a clear sign that multilateral development banks have missed the mark on setting a blueprint on what true development looks like in Africa? The legitimate demand for Africa's development should not rationalize actions that ultimately entrench economic dependencies or risk the creation of assets that may soon be obsolete.
Over the decades, Africa's relationship with the World Bank has been steeped in the politics of debt. Loans from the World Bank, though framed as tools for development and economic growth, often carry stringent conditions. These conditions—ranging from economic restructuring to significant policy changes including adopting fossil gas as a transition fuel—may not always be congruent with the unique socioeconomic realities of each African nation, including their vulnerability to climatic shocks. The recent horrors witnessed in Mali, where more than 100 people were scorched to death in what was deemed as one of the deadliest heatwaves ever to sweep through the Sahel region, should be a wake-up call to the dangers of the climate crisis.
African economies have been locked at the bottom of the global value chain since colonial times, and the risk of stranded assets will only trap the continent in a cycle that could cause substantial declines in exporters' sovereign credit ratings, increasing their challenge in servicing existing debts that have crippled over half the continent's population.
The World Bank needs to think critically about its role in Africa's development. Massive growth in financial investment into renewable energy is required in Africa to address the severe underfinance the continent has suffered.
The conclusion of the World Bank Spring Meetings held in Washington D.C. in April has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped for a decisive pivot toward increased financing for renewable energy. The World Bank's enduring support for fossil gas investments starkly contrasts with the ongoing climate emergency, thus exacerbating the vulnerabilities and hardships faced by communities across Africa, compounding their development challenges.
Africa has been courted to produce natural gas in the guise of economic development, as proponents claim gas is a transition fuel capable of catalyzing long-term economic prosperity. This is a misguided and
dangerous assumption creating a missed opportunity for the World Bank to set the record straight.
If the World Bank maintains its stance on gas, it risks perpetuating a neocolonial narrative by anchoring Africa in a fossil fuel-dependent development model that binds the continent to poverty and environmental degradation. This approach not only stifles Africa's potential to harness its vast renewable resources for clean, affordable energy but also obstructs a path toward sustainable and equitable prosperity. It is imperative for Africa to leverage its renewable energy capacities to foster genuine development that benefits all.
The recent horrors witnessed in Mali, where more than 100 people were scorched to death in what was deemed as one of the deadliest heatwaves ever to sweep through the Sahel region, should be a wake-up call to the dangers of the climate crisis.
The World Bank bears a profound duty to eradicate energy poverty in Africa in ways that promote sustainable growth and equitable progress, contributing meaningfully to the global fight against climate change. Instead, the World Bank has created a finance system that has continued to lock Africa at the bottom of the food chain. As it stands, many African nations are positioned at the forefront of intense global energy conflicts, as major international players compete to secure resources to tackle the growing energy crisis. This pursuit to have Africa be the “gas station” for the world unfolds at a critical juncture when there is a proposal to reform the global financial architecture. The reforms currently under discussion amount to mere cosmetic changes—that have allowed over $1.2 Billion in direct financing for fossil fuel-related projects.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has clearly articulated that beyond the projects committed to as of 2021, there is no further necessity for investments in new fossil fuel supplies. The IEA's position is unambiguous: No new oil and gas fields are envisaged in their recommended pathway, nor are any new coal mines or extensions deemed necessary. Given this scientific consensus, one must question the rationale behind the continued pursuit of fossil fuels and the absence of a fossil fuel finance exclusion policy within the bank's operational framework. Furthermore, is the World Bank stance on fossil gas a clear sign that multilateral development banks have missed the mark on setting a blueprint on what true development looks like in Africa? The legitimate demand for Africa's development should not rationalize actions that ultimately entrench economic dependencies or risk the creation of assets that may soon be obsolete.
Over the decades, Africa's relationship with the World Bank has been steeped in the politics of debt. Loans from the World Bank, though framed as tools for development and economic growth, often carry stringent conditions. These conditions—ranging from economic restructuring to significant policy changes including adopting fossil gas as a transition fuel—may not always be congruent with the unique socioeconomic realities of each African nation, including their vulnerability to climatic shocks. The recent horrors witnessed in Mali, where more than 100 people were scorched to death in what was deemed as one of the deadliest heatwaves ever to sweep through the Sahel region, should be a wake-up call to the dangers of the climate crisis.
African economies have been locked at the bottom of the global value chain since colonial times, and the risk of stranded assets will only trap the continent in a cycle that could cause substantial declines in exporters' sovereign credit ratings, increasing their challenge in servicing existing debts that have crippled over half the continent's population.
The World Bank needs to think critically about its role in Africa's development. Massive growth in financial investment into renewable energy is required in Africa to address the severe underfinance the continent has suffered.