Earlier this month, a years-long legal attempt by community and environmental groups to challenge a new oil project in Horse Hill, Surrey resulted in victory – with implications for all new fossil fuel projects in the UK.
On 20 June, the Supreme Court, the highest court for civil cases in the UK, issued a majority judgment ruling that Surrey County Council acted unlawfully by granting planning permission for the project, because councillors did not consider the climate impact from burning the fuel.
It came after an “incredibly finely balanced” legal battle, which saw multiple courts reject the arguments made by environmental groups – and judges in the Supreme Court take nearly a year to come to their own conclusion.
The judgment, which will now lead to changes in how the environmental impact of new fossil fuel projects is assessed, has been described as “landmark”, “watershed” and “tide-turning” by environmental groups, while right-leaning media warned it could “kill off the oil industry” completely.
Below, Carbon Brief speaks to environmental lawyers to unpack what happened in the Horse Hill case, what it actually means for UK fossil fuel production and how it could affect the policies of the next UK government.
- What happened in the Horse Hill case?
- What does the judgment mean for other fossil fuel projects in the UK?
- Could it affect other carbon-intensive projects, such as airport and road expansion?
- What could the judgment mean for the next UK government?
What happened in the Horse Hill case?
The story began back in 2012 when Surrey County Council granted planning permission for Horse Hill Developments Ltd to dig an exploratory oil well at Horse Hill, a site close to the town of Horley in Surrey and 3.5km north of Gatwick Airport.
In 2017, the council granted permission for a second borehole, a sidetrack well and for testing to commence.
In 2019, the council granted permission for the project to start drilling for oil – just two months after it had passed a motion declaring a climate emergency. The project was to include six oil wells, which would produce 3m tonnes of oil over a 20-year period.
In 2020, Sarah Finch, a freelance editor representing the Weald Action Group, a network of organisations opposing oil and gas in southern England, decided to challenge the council’s decision to grant planning permission in the High Court, with charity Friends of the Earth acting as the legal intervener.
(There is a clear scientific consensus that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with meeting the Paris Agreement’s ambition of keeping global temperatures at 1.5C.)
Finch and her representatives argued that the decision to permit the oil development was unlawful because the council did not take into account the climate impact of burning the fossil fuels produced by the project.
Under an EU directive that has been incorporated into UK law, any development that is likely to have a significant effect on the environment must carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA). This assessment must be considered by the decision makers responsible for permitting the project.
The legal challenge argued that the EIA for the Horse Hill drilling project only considered the climate impact from the process of dredging up the oil from the ground, rather than from burning the oil.
As with any fossil fuel project, the emissions from burning the fuel are far larger than those from simply setting up operations, Katie de Kauwe, the lead in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, explains to Carbon Brief:
“In the Finch case, the developer assessed that the operational emissions were around 114,000 tonnes of [carbon dioxide] equivalent (CO2e). But then during the hearing, it was recorded that the end use emissions from burning the oil were over 10m tonnes. So they really are dwarfed. And the decision maker had no information on that whatsoever when they granted permission for the oil drilling in Surrey.”
But, in December 2020, the High Court ruled that the council had acted lawfully, with the judge concluding that it would have been “impossible” for the council to have considered the emissions from burning the oil.
Finch appealed the decision. In November 2021, a Court of Appeal hearing before three judges resulted in an “unusual” split decision, with two judges upholding that the council acted lawfully and the third producing a strong dissenting judgment that it had not.
In contrast to the High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal judgment said that decision makers for fossil fuel projects are not prohibited from considering the emissions from burning the fuels.
However, in practical terms, it left it up to the decision makers themselves as to whether they will consider these emissions or not.
Finch appealed again, leading to a hearing before the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK for civil cases, in June 2023. This took place before five judges.
In this hearing, legal interventions were made by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Office for Environmental Protection and representatives of the company behind a new coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, which itself is facing a legal challenge from environmental groups (more on this below).
The Office for Environment Protection was set up post-Brexit to act as an independent environmental watchdog, pursuing the enforcement of environmental law and the introduction of new protections. It was the first time this office had intervened in a court case.
The Supreme Court took almost a year to deliver its judgment, which finally came on 20 June 2024.
It delivered a majority decision from three of the five judges that Surrey County Council had acted unlawfully in permitting the oil project, with the other judges giving a dissenting judgment.
Delivering the majority judgment, Lord Leggatt ruled that the decision to grant planning permission for the oil project was unlawful as the project’s EIA failed to assess the climate impact of burning the oil, and the reasons for disregarding this were “demonstrably flawed”.
Rejecting the arguments made by the council, the developer and the government that the emissions from burning the oil were not within their control, Lord Leggatt said:
“The combustion emissions are manifestly not outwith the control of the site operators. They are entirely within their control. If no oil is extracted, no combustion emissions will occur. Conversely, any extraction of oil by the site operators will in due course result in greenhouse gas emissions upon its inevitable combustion.”
The Supreme Court said any suggestion that local planning authorities are unable to consider climate change when making planning decisions is “misguided”.
It also rejected the Court of the Appeal’s ruling that it should be up to the decision maker to decide whether to consider emissions from burning the fuels produced by new fossil-fuel projects, with Lord Leggatt saying this “would be a recipe for unpredictable, inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making”.
It is the first time in UK legislative history that a judgment has ruled that decision-makers should consider the emissions from burning fossil fuels – also known as scope 3 emissions – and not just those from the project’s operations.
It follows on from a similar ruling in Norway in January of this year.
In a statement, environmental charity ClientEarth lawyer Sophie Marjanac said the two judgments indicated that the world is “reaching a tipping point where countries and companies are going to have to comprehensively account for the impact of every fossil fuel project on the climate”.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Angus Walker, an infrastructure planning solicitor, noted that, from the very start, the Finch case proved highly divisive among the court judges:
“It was incredibly finely balanced all the way from the very first stage…It’s interesting that the dissenting judgment is as long as the leading judgment, that also shows how finely balanced it was. And it took them a year to produce it, which I think is unusually long even for the Supreme Court. Does that mean they were agonising over it? I don’t know.”
What does the judgment mean for other fossil fuel projects in the UK?
Much of the coverage of the judgment focused on what it could mean for the UK’s fossil-fuel industry.
Environmental groups described the ruling as “landmark”, “watershed” and “tide-turning”, while right-wing media warned it could “kill off the oil industry” completely.
Lawyers explain to Carbon Brief that the judgment will have consequences for new fossil fuel projects in the UK. However, it does not amount to a “ban” or “block” on Horse Hill or other similar projects.
Rather, the judgment makes it clear that, when an EIA is produced for a new fossil-fuel project, this should include information on the emissions associated with burning the coal, oil or gas produced – and not just the much smaller emissions from the project’s operations. Walker explains:
“It’s just assessing and reporting. The decision makers can still grant [an oil project planning permission], but it’s just about knowing what the impacts are. The judgment is careful to point out this is only information for the decision maker, it is not a factor that itself bans these projects from going ahead.”
Tessa Khan, an environmental lawyer and founder of Uplift, a group supporting actions on ending new oil and gas production, adds:
“It’s groundbreaking because, until now, when an EIA was done for an oil and gas project, you didn’t even need to know what the scope 3 emissions would be before you said that the environmental impacts were compatible with the decision to approve the project.
“What Horse Hill does is say that information has to be on the desk of the decision maker. But that doesn’t mean that that’s an automatic block on the project, it’s just one factor in the mix of different factors.”
The kinds of developments that are required to produce EIAs when looking to obtain development consent in the UK include onshore oil and gas, offshore oil and gas in the North Sea and coal mining projects.
When it comes to North Sea oil and gas projects, developers must first obtain a licence for fossil fuel exploration from the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).
After this, developers will apply for development consent, which is granted by the NSTA and the secretary of state for energy infrastructure, which would currently be the secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, Claire Coutinho.
It is at this stage that project developers will have to produce an EIA containing information on emissions from burning the fossil fuels.
That means that oil and gas projects that have been awarded a licence for exploration, but have not yet obtained development consent, will be affected by the Horse Hill judgment.
Previous Carbon Brief analysis shows there are dozens of such projects looking to obtain development consent sometime between now and 2025.
North Sea oil and gas projects that have already received development consent, such as the Rosebank oil field, will not be automatically affected.
However, the judgment will offer new arms to legal challenges against such projects.
Khan, who is contributing to a legal challenge against Rosebank that is due to be held in the next few months, says:
“Our legal challenge against Rosebank, if we succeed, would mean that the decision has to be remade around the development consent. And so in making that decision, the government and the regulator would then have to consider the scope 3 emissions.”
Rosebank contains around 325m barrels of oil equivalent. Previous Carbon Brief analysis found that, when burnt, this would produce around 150m tonnes of CO2e – roughly the same as produced each year by 90 of the world’s lowest-emitting countries.
Coal mining is another activity that is likely to be affected by the judgment.
This likely explains why representatives from the company behind a new coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, were moved to intervene in the Supreme Court case on Horse Hill, experts tell Carbon Brief.
The controversial project was permitted by communities secretary Michael Gove in 2022 and would be the UK’s first new deep coal mine in 30 years.
It plans to produce coking coal to be exported for global steel production, rather than for power production.
De Kauwe, who with Friends of the Earth is mounting a legal challenge against the coal mine to be held in the High Court on 16-18 July, said the reasoning used in the Horse Hill judgment is likely to hold true for the mining project:
“Coal’s role in all of this is to be burned as part of that steelmaking process. So it doesn’t matter that it’s not being used in power generation, it’s still the burning of fossil fuel.”
As with Rosebank, an overturning of the development consent given to the Cumbria mine by Gove would lead to the project having to produce a new EIA including information on emissions from burning the coal produced.
Could it affect other carbon-intensive projects, such as airport and road expansion?
While it is clear that the judgment will have implications for fossil fuel projects in the UK, it is unlikely to have consequences for other carbon-intensive infrastructure projects, such as airport and road expansion, experts tell Carbon Brief.
The judgment makes it clear that the ruling only applies to fossil-fuel projects, de Kauwe says:
“I think Lord Leggatt is very clear that in requiring the assessment of downstream emissions for fossil fuel projects, this is not opening up the floodgates, that was something that had clearly bothered both the High Court judge and the Court of Appeal.”
The judgment specifically says that fossil fuel projects are unique when compared to other types of carbon-intensive infrastructure, such as aeroplane manufacturing, she adds:
“[Lord Leggatt] said that the difference with fossil fuels, these have an inevitable use. They’ve only got one use. It’s for combustion.”
Walker adds that both road and airport expansion projects already consider the additional emissions from creating more car traffic or flights.
What could the judgment mean for the next UK government?
The judgment comes just days before a general election in the UK.
Carbon Brief has assessed where each party stands on fossil fuels. For example, the Conservatives have pledged to continue issuing new North Sea oil and gas licences, while Reform has promised to “fast-track” them.
Polls suggest that the Labour party is likely to win the election.
Labour’s manifesto says it “will not issue new licences” for oil and gas exploration, but that it “will not revoke existing licences”, leaving vagueness around whether it will grant development consent to new projects that have an exploration licence already.
Outside of the manifesto, representatives of Labour have previously pledged to put a stop to Rosebank and Cambo, two of the largest new oil and gas projects.
In light of the judgment, it is probable that the new energy secretary, which is likely to be the shadow energy and net-zero secretary Ed Miliband, will be faced with deciding whether to grant development consent to new North Sea oil and gas projects – with, for the first time, full knowledge of the emissions that will be caused by burning the fuels produced.
Commenting on the likely impact of the judgment on decision makers, Walker says:
“It makes the negatives appear greater, I would have thought, when weighing up whether to give consent.”
The post Q&A: What does the ‘landmark’ Horse Hill judgment mean for UK fossil fuels? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does the ‘landmark’ Horse Hill judgment mean for UK fossil fuels?
Climate Change
DeBriefed 3 July 2026: US faces scorching Independence Day | Record ocean temperatures | Vietnam’s EV surge
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Heating up
NOT FREE FROM HEAT: “Dangerous, record-breaking” heat altered plans for 4 July celebrations across the US this weekend, reported the Associated Press. New York and Boston hit 100F (37.8C) on Thursday, said the newswire. CNBC reported that temperatures of up to 105F (40.5C) are forecast in central and eastern parts of the country, with “daily, monthly and all-time records possible”.
TEMPERATURES SOAR: Heat that hit western Europe last week spread east to “scorch” Germany, Hungary, Romania, Poland and others, said Bloomberg. Red warnings for extreme heat were issued in a number of nations, noted the outlet, adding that the heat “underscores how climate change is transforming summers in the world’s fastest-warming continent”. The Independent said last month was confirmed to be England’s hottest June on record.
HEAT DEATHS: June’s extreme temperatures caused more than 2,000 excess deaths in Spain and France, reported the Guardian. The countries are bracing for further heat that “could bring temperatures of 44C (111F) over the coming days”, said the newspaper. Deaths in France rose almost 30% at the heatwave “peak” on the week of 22 June, according to Le Monde. Last week’s conditions also led to around 480 excess deaths in the Netherlands, reported Reuters.
BOILING: Global ocean temperatures reached record levels for this time of year, reported NBC News, “fuelling fears of more dangerous heatwaves this summer and fanning concerns over the escalating global climate crisis”. Scientists told the Financial Times that this could lead the world towards “uncharted territory”. The newspaper said global average sea surface temperatures reached 20.96C on 21 June, exceeding June records for 2023 and 2024.
Around the world
- GOAL DROPPED: The World Bank will “abandon” its goal to devote 45% of annual lending resources to climate-related projects, reported Reuters. Carbon Brief explored what it could mean for global climate action.
- FIVE-YEAR PLAN: China plans to invest more than 20tn yuan ($2.9tn) in “key energy projects and new business models” over the next five years, according to International Energy Net.
- DRILLING: The Guardian said UK Labour politicians “urged” the likely next prime minister Andy Burnham to ignore “deluded” calls to develop the Rosebank oil field located in the Atlantic north of Scotland.
- PLASTIC TALKS: Countries and activists feared key issues could be sidelined at “critical” talks on a global treaty to curb plastic pollution in Kenya, said Climate Home News. A treaty could have “important implications” for climate change, reported Carbon Brief in 2024.
- CANADA PIPELINE: Canadian prime minister Mark Carney announced plans to build an oil pipeline to supply Asia with up to 1m barrels per day, reported the Financial Times. Earlier this week, Carney called the previous government’s climate plans “expensive” and “divisive”, said CBC News.
63
The number of UK newspaper editorials calling for more oil and gas extraction in the North Sea so far in 2026, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Latest climate research
- Including emissions from permafrost thaw raises the likelihood of the Arctic becoming a net-carbon source by more than 50% at 2C of warming | Earth System Dynamics
- Net-zero scenarios relying less on carbon dioxide removals lead to fewer residual emissions, which offers greater health improvements for “non-white and low-income groups” in particular | Nature Climate Change
- Agricultural plots of land in sub-Saharan Africa owned by women face heat impacts 2-2.5 times higher than those owned by men | Nature Sustainability
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Wind and solar were the world’s largest source of new energy in 2025, according to Carbon Brief analysis of the latest Energy Institute statistical review of world energy. Wind and solar also saw the fastest growth, up by 18% in 2025. Nevertheless, every source of energy – including coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro – also reached global all-time highs last year.
Spotlight
Vietnam’s EV surge
Carbon Brief explores the reasons behind soaring electric-vehicle sales in Vietnam.
Motorbikes are a constant fixture on streets across Vietnam. They pollute the air in cities and make crossing the road a feat of endurance.
But, increasingly, people are moving away from petrol-powered vehicles to save money and reduce air pollution.
Sales of electric motorbikes, scooters and mopeds more than doubled in Vietnam last year, according to a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
This identified that Vietnam has the largest electric vehicle (EV) market in south-east Asia.
Nearly one-in-five of the two-wheeled vehicles sold last year were electric, it noted, in a nation with 102 million people and 77m motorbikes.
This is “particularly impactful” given they are the main mode of transport in Vietnam, said Lam Pham, Asia energy analyst at thinktank Ember. He told Carbon Brief:
“Electrifying road transport is essential for Vietnam to achieve its net-zero target by 2050. Road transport accounted for around 86% of transport-sector emissions in 2022.”
The nation has just 6.8m cars, but this number is also climbing, partly due to EVs, with nearly 40% of new car sales being electric.
This is “above levels seen in most European countries”, noted the IEA. (The UK’s figure is around 30%.)
EV incentives
Fuel costs surged in south-east Asian countries earlier this year after the energy crisis caused by the US-Israel war on Iran.
This “accelerated” discussions from “why use EVs” to “why keep paying more for fuel”, said Dr Tham Nguyen, a lecturer at the Ho Chi Minh City campus of Australia’s Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, who has researched Vietnamese public attitudes to EVs.
But the surge is “not driven by fuel prices alone”, noted Pham.
Increased EV sales can also be attributed to a “convergence of affordability, convenience and sustainability”, Nguyen said:
“Vietnamese consumers buy EVs because they see real value with immediate personal benefits, such as cost savings and energy security, alongside long-term environmental gains.”
Government policies have also incentivised sales through registration fee exemptions and tax cuts for EVs.
Another factor is affordable EVs sold by Chinese companies and Vinfast, a Vietnamese manufacturer. The IEA report noted that Vietnam is the only country in south-east Asia with “sizeable” domestic production of accessible EVs.
Vinfast reported a 219% year-on-year increase in orders for electric motorbikes and e-bikes in the first quarter of 2026, but the company has yet to turn a profit.
Pham noted that “growing public awareness of air pollution” has also “dramatically strengthened” public support for EVs.
Future plans
Vietnam’s major cities also have plans to get drivers to go electric or turn to public transport.
The capital city Hanoi announced that it would ban fossil-fuel-powered motorbikes from a central zone this month, but this has been postponed until 2028.
Ho Chi Minh City, the nation’s largest city with more than 9.5 million people, intends to introduce low-emission zones and swap 400,000 petrol-powered motorbikes to electric by 2028.
The city’s green transport plans focus on metro lines, electric buses and e-bikes, explained RMIT associate professor Catherine Earl. She noted that walking and cycling are currently “not popular, accessible or safe for many residents in Ho Chi Minh City’s hot and humid climate”.
Looking ahead, Pham said Vietnam could focus on “purchase subsidies, financing schemes and adequate charging or battery-swapping infrastructure, to ensure lower-income riders, including delivery and ride-hailing drivers, are not negatively affected”.
Watch, read, listen
‘JUST 1%’ OF EMISSIONS: The Guardian debunked arguments that climate actions from smaller countries are “insignificant”.
DRILLING RISKS: Mongabay reported on the possible impacts oil drilling in the Amazon could have on a “little-known reef”.
HEATING UP: The BBC Climate Question podcast discussed the weather pattern El Niño and its links to climate change.
Coming up
- 7-10 July: AI for good global summit, Geneva, Switzerland
- 7-15 July: UN high-level political forum on sustainable development, New York
- 8-10 July: Ninth meeting of the board of the fund for responding to loss and damage, Manila, Philippines
Pick of the jobs
- Green Alliance, senior partnerships officer | Salary: £42,748-£47,346. Location: London
- World Vision, environment and climate action senior adviser | Salary: Unknown. Location: Kenya
- Nature Energy, interim associate or senior editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: London or Milan
- Climate Analytics, senior communications manager – climate policy (maternity cover) | Salary €60,605-€66,880. Location: Berlin
- Carbon Exchange, researcher | Salary: Unknown. Location: Hong Kong
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 3 July 2026: US faces scorching Independence Day | Record ocean temperatures | Vietnam’s EV surge appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The World Bank has abandoned a target for 45% of the funding it gives developing countries to be “climate finance”, following months of pressure from the Trump administration in the US.
However, a concerted effort by developed- and developing-country shareholders has seen the bank hold onto its “action plan” for tackling climate change.
The multilateral development bank (MDB) – which is headquartered in Washington DC – is the single largest provider of climate finance globally, distributing $39.2bn in 2025 alone, primarily as loans.
Amid widespread aid cuts by developed countries, the World Bank and other MDBs have previously pledged to significantly scale up their climate finance over the next decade.
Despite scrapping its central target, the bank says it will continue to support the demands of its “clients”, many of which have explicitly stated their need for climate-related investment.
Here, Carbon Brief looks at the likely impact of the World Bank’s policy shift and whether it is – as one expert puts it – “mostly a symbolic victory” for the US.
- How does the World Bank support climate action?
- Why has the World Bank abandoned its climate-finance target?
- Why is the World Bank important for international climate finance?
- How will these changes affect global climate action?
How does the World Bank support climate action?
The World Bank is the oldest and largest MDB. It is tasked by its 189 member governments – the bank’s shareholders – with supporting development projects around the world.
The US is the bank’s largest shareholder, followed, in order, by Japan, China, Germany, France and the UK.
Every year, the bank provides billions of dollars – predominantly as loans – to developing countries.
(One part of the World Bank, the International Development Association – IDA – specifically distributes grants to lower-income nations, as well as lower-interest loans.)
Through its financing, the World Bank also has an important role in “mobilising” private investments in developing countries.
In recent years, the bank has increasingly focused on helping developing countries to cut emissions and adapt their economies for climate change.
The World Bank provided $164bn in what it calls financing with climate “co-benefits” between 2020 and 2025.
The largest share of this funding – roughly one-fifth – went to clean energy and electricity access projects. Smaller shares went to areas such as public transport, water supply and sustainable farming.
As the map below shows, the largest recipients of the bank’s climate funds since 2020 have been emerging economies, such as Turkey ($10.3bn), India ($9bn) and Nigeria ($6.3bn).
Among the largest World Bank projects in recent years are two extensive programmes in India, totalling nearly $3bn, supporting renewables and green hydrogen.
Others include $1.7bn for a Pakistan hydropower project, $926m for Iraq’s railways and $803m to boost “green development” in Colombia.
Despite the bank’s major role in providing climate finance to developing countries, it has faced heavy scrutiny from climate advocates.
In particular, they have noted the dominance of loans that push developing countries further into debt. The World Bank has also been criticised for a lack of transparency around how it classifies projects as “climate-related”, as well as “over-reporting” of climate finance.
Why has the World Bank abandoned its climate-finance target?
When World Bank president Ajay Banga – nominated by former US president Joe Biden – took over the institution in 2023, there were widespread calls for MDB reform.
Many of the bank’s shareholders wanted to see billions more dollars being channelled to support climate action. Later that year, Banga announced that the bank would ensure that 45% of the bank’s funding was climate finance by 2025.
This replaced an existing target of 35% for climate finance between 2021 and 2025, which had been set out in the bank’s second climate change action plan (CCAP).
The CCAP is intended to “mainstream” climate action in the bank’s work. With it in place, the World Bank’s climate finance more than doubled from $17.2bn in 2020 to $39.2bn in 2025.
As the chart below shows, this meant the World Bank exceeded its 2025 goal, with climate-related projects making up a 48% share of total funding that year.
When Biden was replaced by Donald Trump as president in 2025, the US administration turned against international cooperation, including climate finance.
However, the US did not walk away from the World Bank, where it exerts considerable power as the largest shareholder.
With the CCAP due to expire in July 2026, the US has spent months pressuring the bank and its shareholders to weaken or abandon the plan altogether.
US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent issued a statement during the 2026 World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) spring meetings in April 2026, in which he called for “jettisoning” the 45% climate-finance target. More broadly, he said:
“We welcome the coming expiration of the CCAP and…expect the bank to immediately shift its myopic focus on climate and financing volumes to one that emphasises high-quality, durable projects.”
This vision involves a push for the World Bank to finance more fossil-fuel projects, including drilling for new gas. (The bank has committed since 2019 to stop funding upstream oil and gas projects.)
The decision on whether to continue with the CCAP was negotiated behind closed doors by the board of directors – representing national shareholders. There were reports of “deep divides”.
A joint statement from 19 of the 25 directors last year affirmed the need for both a plan and a target. The US, Russia, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all declined to sign up, while Japan and India abstained, according to Reuters.
There were reports of European nations championing a climate plan, bolstered by support from the developing countries that would stand to receive climate finance. The US call to drop the 45% target entirely was reportedly backed by Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Ultimately, the day before the CCAP was due to lapse, the World Bank announced what appeared to be a middle ground. It would drop both the 45% target and the 35% goal it had replaced, while also “extend[ing]” the CCAP.
UK development minister Jenny Chapman told a committee hearing in the House of Commons the next day that this marked a “compromise”. She said:
“It wasn’t clear we were going to get a CCAP at all and a bank without an action plan on climate is a problem for us – so that’s a good outcome.”
Supportive shareholders had been pushing for a one-year extension of the plan. While the World Bank did not initially define the length, Chapman confirmed on LinkedIn that the plan had, in fact, been extended “indefinitely”.
The bank said it would also engage an “independent evaluation group” to assess the CCAP, in line with a board request.
Gaia Larsen, director of climate finance at the World Resources Institute (WRI), tells Carbon Brief that this evaluation will likely be “relatively free from political ideology” and could be “focused on how to make the CCAP more effective”.
Why is the World Bank important for international climate finance?
Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries – including major World Bank shareholders in Europe and elsewhere – are obliged to provide climate finance for developing countries.
This includes a target of $300bn a year by 2035, which is expected to largely come from developed countries. One significant way these nations can contribute to this goal is via their support for MDBs, particularly the World Bank.
The World Bank has described itself as “by far the largest provider of climate finance to developing countries”. Each year, it oversees half of all climate finance from MDBs and far more than any single donor country.
Many developed countries have, therefore, enthusiastically backed the World Bank’s climate efforts, as well as a “bigger” role for MDBs in development more broadly. The bank can lend sums that far exceed the amount of new public finance that individual nations are willing to commit.
This is particularly significant, given many of these nations, including the UK, Germany and France, have announced large cuts to their aid budgets in recent years.
Carbon Brief analysis suggests that roughly a fifth of the international climate finance provided and “mobilised” by developed countries in recent years can be attributed to their World Bank contributions, as the chart below shows.
(This only accounts for the World Bank financing that can be linked to developed-country shares in the bank. Developing countries, such as China, also have significant shares, which are not included in the chart below.)
MDBs – including the World Bank – have committed to providing $120bn in climate finance to developing countries by 2030.
This was set to come from greater shareholder contributions, combined with a programme of reforms to free up capital.
If the World Bank continued to provide half of the MDB total, it would need to increase its climate finance by around 50%, from $39.2bn today to $60bn in 2030.
Therefore, experts see a “key” role for the World Bank in achieving not only the $300bn target, but also the more aspirational $1.3n target that countries agreed as part of the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG) on climate finance at COP29 in 2024. This includes the private capital it could “unlock” through its lending.
Joe Thwaites, international climate finance director at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), tells Carbon Brief that these “NCQG politics” are “quite important”. He says:
“The maths of the $300bn does not work if the MDBs pull back and so I think that’s why you’re seeing developed countries taking a stand.”
How will these changes affect global climate action?
To date, the World Bank has only released minimal details about its new climate plans. As such, experts say the impact on future climate finance remains uncertain.
Jon Sward, environment project manager at the Bretton Woods Project, tells Carbon Brief:
“They have said they are going to retain all the same processes about climate-finance reporting. So, of course, there is a world in which, actually, climate finance continues to increase like it has been.”
Some of the World Bank’s internal organisations will, in fact, keep their climate-finance goals for the time being. For example, the IDA’s largely grant-based funding retains a 45% target for its current round, which will last until 2028 – the year of the next US presidential election.
However, WRI’s Larsen tells Carbon Brief that the changes, from a bank that was previously a “champion for climate action”, remain significant:
“This reality, reinforced by the elimination of the 45% goal, means that it would not be surprising to see a reduction in climate investments.”
In a statement, the World Bank said its “work on climate is and will remain firmly client driven”, noting that it supports nations undertaking their Paris Agreement climate plans.
Therefore, its climate focus may come down to whether there is demand for climate action from “client” countries receiving finance.
At an April event in discussion with the climate sceptic Bjørn Lomborg, Bessent said that global financial institutions should focus on growth, characterising climate action as an “elite belief”.
The implication from the US Treasury secretary was that recipient countries are not interested in climate action. However, as reported by Devex, a group of World Bank shareholders representing nearly 100 developing countries, wrote a letter that appeared to push back against this framing.
This “G11+” group, led by Brazil and China, said the bank “must remain firmly client-driven”, noting that countries are “following nationally determined pathways toward climate action”. NRDC’s Thwaites tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s one thing for the Europeans to talk about climate…This was the client countries [100 developing countries] saying: ‘No, we want this.’”
Recent research by the ODI thinktank found that 79% of developing-country officials polled wanted to see MDB investment in solar projects, 54% wanted hydropower and 47% wanted wind power. Only 13% wanted investment in gas-power plants.
Rishikesh Ram Bhandary, a senior development researcher at Boston University, has stressed the need for an “enhanced CCAP”, which could be supported by the bank’s new independent evaluation. Among other things, he tells Carbon Brief:
“The bank needs to make a more convincing case about how climate change is being integrated into development priorities rather than competing with them.”
Thwaites says he is hopeful that the outcome is “mostly a symbolic victory for the US”.
However, he says major shareholders from Europe and elsewhere should make it clear to the bank that it is not “the only game in town” when it comes to climate finance. He says:
“If [the World Bank] are going to cave into one shareholder, when the vast majority of the other shareholders are supportive of continuing climate action, they can take their money elsewhere.”
The post Q&A: How will the World Bank’s abandoned finance goal affect climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: How will the World Bank’s abandoned finance goal affect climate action?
Rich Wilson is CEO of the Iswe Foundation and co-founder of the Global Citizens’ Assembly.
The numbers are stark. According to the 2026 Global Report on Food Crises, 266 million people across 47 countries experienced high levels of acute food insecurity last year, nearly double the figure recorded a decade ago.
Meanwhile, disruptions to oil, gas and fertiliser flows through the Strait of Hormuz drove a 46% month-on-month spike in urea prices early this year, sending agricultural price indices up 8% and raising the spectre of a global affordability crisis.
This is not a blip. It is a new baseline. The EAT-Lancet Commission concluded that food systems now account for roughly 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions and are the largest single contributor to the climate crisis. The science has been clear for years.
Now some of the solutions to the problem are becoming socially acceptable too.
-
Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future?
Battery energy storage systems (BESS) could drive clean tech manufacturing in Africa but shortfalls in finance and data are still limiting deployment at scale
Earlier this year, people from more than 60 countries and territories, selected not by vested interest, but by lottery, spent seven weeks examining the evidence on food and climate for the latest Global Citizens’ Assembly. They heard from scientists, farmers and industry. They worked through 42 hours of structured deliberation, engaging with some difficult trade-offs.
They were not asked to endorse a predetermined conclusion. They were asked an open question: what changes, if any, should we make to how we grow, share and eat food, so that everyone has enough to nourish themselves while tackling the causes and impacts of climate change?
Phase down industrial animal farming
Their answer was unambiguous. They voted to protect forests. They voted to phase down industrial animal food production. They voted for supply chain reform and corporate accountability, explicitly rejecting the idea that the burden of change should fall on individual consumers. All 22 of their Calls to Action passed with over 85% support, a super-majority of randomly selected people from every region of the world, in agreement.
Consider what the assembly was actually being asked to decide. Industrial animal food production is the primary driver of tropical deforestation. Protecting more land as forest and ecosystem means less land available for the expansion of industrial production. That is a real trade-off, with real consequences for real livelihoods. Politicians have spent years avoiding it.
These randomly selected people looked at the evidence, deliberated across time zones and cultures, and chose the forests, with 64% in strong support and a further 20% in favour. People from livestock farming communities voted for change. Not because they were told to. Because deliberation led them there.
We estimate there have now been more than 7,000 citizen participation initiatives worldwide in the last decade. They have been organised because, as our 2025 report: People in the Lead demonstrated, people are now consistently and significantly ahead of politicians on issues ranging from climate to AI governance.
The people know best
What the research consistently shows is that ordinary people, given proper evidence and time, produce recommendations that are more effective and more aligned with public values than what emerges from elected legislatures. The gap in global governance is no longer primarily between science and the public. It is between citizens and their political leaders.
That gap matters for more than procedural reasons. When policy treats people as passive recipients rather than active participants, it leaves out the very actors whose behaviour, trust and consent the transition depends on. Institutions that speak only to other institutions, and negotiate only with state actors and industry lobbies, are missing out on the trust and energy of the people they are supposed to serve.
Governments, left to their own devices, are not moving fast enough to prove that argument wrong. At COP30 in Belém last November, countries failed to agree on a fossil fuel phaseout roadmap, and even full implementation of every submitted national climate plan still leaves the world on course for 2.3 to 2.8C of warming.
Citizens’ track at COP
But the Brazilian presidency grasped something important. Among the conference’s more significant outcomes was the formal launch of a Citizens’ Track within the UNFCCC process, a mechanism for connecting the global participation field to intergovernmental climate negotiations. Türkiye and Australia, who together hold the COP31 presidency in Antalya this November, now have the opportunity to strengthen and institutionalise what Brazil began.
In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods
The question before us is no longer whether citizens can contribute to solving these problems. Across the world, in local food networks, in community assemblies and in participatory planning processes, they already are, quietly generating more ambitious and more legitimate solutions than those emerging from formal diplomatic channels.
What is required now is the political courage to connect people to power. Not to consult citizens and file the results. Not to invite them to observe while the real decisions are made elsewhere. But to recognise the public as partners in perhaps the most consequential governance challenge of our time.
The post As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments appeared first on Climate Home News.
As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years 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 Change2 years 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”
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测