This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360.
After a decade of declining to finance large hydroelectric dams, the World Bank is getting back into the business in a big way.
Throughout the last half of the 20th century, the bank was the world’s leading supporter of big hydro. But over the last two decades, it followed a zigzag pattern as dam supporters and critics inside the institution took turns determining hydro policy.
During the last 10 years, the critics — disturbed by big dams’ huge social and environmental costs and their long construction timelines — seemed to dominate, and the bank supported only one new big hydro project.
But earlier this week the bank’s board of directors approved a scheme to make the bank the lead financier in a $6.3 billion project to finish construction of the Rogun Dam in Tajikistan. The frequently stalled project, launched in 1976, is now about 30 percent complete. If fully built, it would become both the world’s tallest dam, at 1,100 feet, and with its total price tag of $11 billion, one of the world’s most expensive.
The World Bank and Democratic Republic of Congo officials also have been negotiating the terms of a deal that would include financing Inga 3, the third of eight proposed dams in a megaproject known as Grand Inga.
Jaw-dropping in scale, Grand Inga is a $100-billion venture that would be the world’s largest dam scheme, nearly doubling the power output of China’s Three Gorges, currently the world’s largest hydroelectric dam, and potentially bringing electricity to a sizable chunk of the African continent. It would also reconfigure the hydrology of the world’s second-most-powerful river, the Congo, in what opponents consider environmentally harmful ways.
The Three Gorges dam on the Yangtze river in China (Photo: Pedro Vasquez/Flickr)
In addition, last April the bank “agreed in principle” to lead a consortium of international and regional banks financing a $1.1 billion dam, one of Nepal’s biggest, on the Arun River. Called the Upper Arun, the dam is backed by Indian companies, and its electricity is intended for export to India.
But Nepal is already sated with hydroelectricity, and as My Republica, a Kathmandu newspaper, reported in October, it has for several years been wasting massive amounts of produced electricity because of the inadequacy of its transmission lines.
The Upper Arun dam is also being built in a region that’s highly vulnerable to earthquakes and to floods caused by the bursting of ice dams on glacial lakes.
The bank’s role in these projects marks a sharp shift in its approach towards hydroelectric dams. “Rogun and Inga are the biggest dams in the world, on a scale we haven’t seen in decades,” said Josh Klemm, co-executive director of International Rivers, an Oakland, California-based river protection NGO. From 2014 to this year, the bank supported only one new major hydropower project, Nachtigal in Cameroon.
Yet between this week and mid-2025, the bank’s board of directors is likely to approve financing for five major dams, including Rogun and Inga 3.
“We are witnessing a massive move [by the World Bank] to consider financing a range of large projects expected to have huge impacts on river basins, or that have already provoked huge, historic controversies,” said Eugene Simonov, coordinator of the Rivers Without Boundaries International Coalition and a researcher at the University of New South Wales, Canberra, in an interview. “The World Bank is revisiting projects it once dropped because of obvious challenges and risks, but those risks did not go away.”
In response to questions, World Bank officials said in a statement, “There has been no policy change on financing hydropower.” The statement continued, “Nevertheless, it has become increasingly clear that hydropower is an important component of promoting clean energy investments,” citing hydropower’s potential to supplement solar and wind energy.
The World Bank’s support for big hydro has been intermittent since the late 1990s, when social and environmental controversies sparked by its dam-building efforts spurred it to convene an investigative body — called the World Commission on Dams — of 12 independent experts to make recommendations for proper planning, design, and construction procedures for big dams. But the bank found the Commission’s recommendations, issued in 2000, so restrictive that it dismissed them.
Instead, it adopted a policy of “High Risk/High Reward” that wholeheartedly embraced big hydro. But the bank backed off when its dams once again triggered controversy. In 2013, the bank tried again to back big hydro, then backed off until 2018, when it softened its social and environmental standards for such projects.
“We believe the bank’s rediscovered fondness for big hydro reflects a desire by Ajay Banga, the bank’s president since June 2023, to kick off his tenure with a splash, even if that involves overlooking environmental and social issues that previously would have ruled the projects out,” said Klemm.
Ajay Banga speaks at the World Economic Forum (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)
Yet bank officials seem to be playing down hydropower’s renewed prominence in their plans, experts say, noting that they may not want to draw attention to the high costs of building dams at a time when President-elect Donald Trump may be considering ending U.S. support for the bank.
Project 2025, the compendium of controversial nationalist policies devised by advisors close to Trump, says the new administration “should withdraw from both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and terminate its financial contribution to both institutions.” The U.S. is the bank’s largest contributor.
No matter how many of these projects result in completed dams, experts believe the bank’s involvement will not alter the global dam-building industry’s current downward trajectory, for many increasingly obvious reasons. These include dams’ enormous upfront costs followed by waits of as long as a decade or more before electricity revenues begin flowing; their destruction of fisheries and riverine ecosystems; their displacement of a conservatively estimated 80 million people around the world and their damage to the livelihoods of a half-billion more; their substantial emissions of methane from some reservoirs; their steep reductions in energy production when drought — which is increasingly common due to climate change — empties reservoirs, as is currently happening in southern Africa and elsewhere; and the seeming coup de grace, their declining competitiveness with increasingly less costly wind and solar installations.
River protection NGOs such as International Rivers argue that the bank’s imprimatur lends an unjustified sheen to the industry, encouraging other regional and international banks to support still more dam projects. “We are writing to express our collective alarm at the notable surge in proposed and recent World Bank support for extensive hydropower development,” began a nine-page, October 23 letter to bank leaders signed by more than 100 environmental NGOs around the world. The letter called on the bank to stop investing in virtually all hydropower projects. The bank answered promptly but cursorily, reaffirming its “partnership” with the NGOs, but it did not address the letter’s points.
With drought-hardy cows, Botswana prioritises adaptation in new climate plan
Rogun and Grand Inga have been magnets for controversy for decades. Tajikistan is a locus of competition in Central Asia, with Western, Arab, Russian, and Chinese interests all competing for political and economic leverage; one way for Europe and the U.S. to gain influence with Tajikistan’s leaders is to help them build the world’s tallest dam there. Supporting Rogun may be a particularly potent tactic as the project is highly popular in Tajikistan and, according to Simonov, the nation’s leaders are “obsessed” with the dam.
One of Rogun’s liabilities is that it will displace between 50,000 and 60,000 people, according to a World Bank document. Simonov said engineering firms proposed alternate plans to build a dam that would be at least 115 feet lower and displace up to 30,000 fewer people. Officials rejected those plans, according to Simonov, because their primary interest was in the prestige they believed would come with building the world’s tallest dam.
Between 2033, when Rogun is projected to be completed, and 2039, when its reservoir is slated to be full, the dam will begin generating electricity and, according to an appraisal prepared for the bank’s board of directors, “will bring significant domestic and regional welfare benefits, contribute to the decarbonization of regional power grids in Central Asia, and potentially transform the Tajik economy.”
Of more immediate interest to Tajiks, the dam’s output should eliminate the electricity blackouts that disrupt heating during the country’s cold winters. The catch is that the water that will turn the Rogun power plant’s turbines in the winter will be impounded from the Vakhsh River during the summer, which means it will no longer reach farmers and others who depend on it downstream in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, according to Simonov.
Rogun will also severely threaten Tajikistan’s Tigrovaya Balka Nature Reserve, a UNESCO World Heritage site, by permanently eliminating floods crucial for sustaining floodplain forests, environmentalists say. And by the time the dam is finished, according to the October 23 letter from NGOs to the World Bank, other renewable electricity options are projected to be far cheaper.
The World Bank appraisal of Rogun categorized the project’s overall risk as “high.” Among the risks it enumerated were the limited experience of Tajik officials, which has resulted in both design and construction delays and “technical and dam safety issues”; the project’s impact on national debt; the poor performance of Tajikistan’s electricity sector, which could limit revenues from electricity sales; and the project’s location in an active seismic zone.
A study comparing greener energy alternatives to Inga 3, published in Environmental Research Letters in 2018, suggests that the dam is not financially prudent. It concludes that in most scenarios, “a mix of wind, solar photovoltaics, and some natural gas is more cost-effective than Inga 3.” Since the study appeared, the costs of solar and wind have only declined.
The post In a major reversal, the World Bank is backing mega dams appeared first on Climate Home News.
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban