Wazzup Pilipinas!?
In a world teetering on the edge of climate catastrophe, the decisions of global financial institutions matter more than ever. That is why the World Bank’s recent pivot under President Ajay Banga — lifting its decades-old ban on nuclear energy financing and doubling down on fossil gas — is not only alarming but profoundly regressive. This move does not reflect the urgency of the moment. Instead, it exposes a dangerous prioritization of political appeasement over planetary survival.
At the heart of this shift lies a blatant contradiction. The World Bank claims to champion clean, affordable energy for developing nations — yet its latest direction favors energy sources that are neither clean, nor cheap, nor sustainable. By embracing nuclear and fossil gas, the Bank not only greenwashes outdated, high-emission technologies, but also sidelines the very transition that could deliver energy justice to the world’s most vulnerable populations.
Climate Commitments Betrayed
For years, the World Bank has positioned itself as a vital player in global climate action, steering finance away from coal and toward cleaner alternatives. But Banga’s embrace of nuclear energy and fossil gas betrays this legacy. His push to lift the nuclear ban — in place for more than four decades — signals a shift away from genuine climate leadership. Worse, it paves the way for more expensive, risk-laden, and time-consuming energy projects in countries already burdened with debt and development challenges.
This isn’t just an error in judgment; it’s a politically motivated maneuver. The United States — the Bank’s largest shareholder with a 16% stake — continues to influence the Bank’s policies. Amid Washington’s recent withdrawal from major climate frameworks, including the Paris Agreement and the Loss and Damage Fund, it is no surprise that the Bank is now repositioning itself to keep America pleased, even if it means abandoning its environmental principles.
Gaslighting the Global South
Central to the World Bank’s justification is the myth of fossil gas as a “transition fuel.” This narrative has been repeatedly discredited. Gas is a fossil fuel. It emits greenhouse gases. It locks countries into long-term, expensive infrastructure. It is not — and never has been — a clean bridge to a renewable future.
In fact, the World Bank has already committed more than $120 billion to gas investments globally. That’s $120 billion diverted away from renewable energy solutions. This isn't just climate hypocrisy — it's a massive setback for developing nations who need true energy independence, not another cycle of fossil fuel dependency.
A Philippine Case Study in Energy Injustice
Nowhere is this contradiction more evident than in the Philippines. With one of the highest electricity costs in Southeast Asia, the country’s energy crisis is rooted in its reliance on imported fossil fuels — accounting for 78% of its power generation. This overdependence exposes the nation to volatile global prices and currency fluctuations, burdens borne disproportionately by Filipino consumers.
If nuclear and gas are pushed further into the national energy mix, the situation will only worsen. Nuclear technology, aside from its well-documented safety risks, demands enormous capital and long construction timelines. It also requires imported uranium or plutonium — again placing national energy security at the mercy of foreign powers.
Meanwhile, imported fossil gas costs the Philippines an estimated $45 million per shipment. These costs are inevitably passed down to consumers through contractual “pasaload” mechanisms, further inflating electricity bills. For a nation striving for economic resilience, this is the wrong direction.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
Let’s talk cost.
Nuclear: Conventional reactors cost up to six times more per kilowatt-hour than solar.
Fossil Gas: Generation costs reach up to PHP 8.00/kWh, nearly double that of solar at PHP 4.40/kWh.
And this doesn’t even account for the long-term financial, environmental, and security costs of nuclear power — such as radioactive waste disposal, plant decommissioning, and accident insurance. These burdens will be shouldered by developing countries least equipped to manage them.
What the World Bank Should Be Funding
What the Philippines — and countries across the Global South — truly need is accelerated access to renewable energy: solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass. These sources are not only cheaper and cleaner but also locally available, helping nations reduce their dependence on volatile import markets.
Transitioning to renewables offers a path toward climate resilience, economic independence, and long-term sustainability. It aligns with the Paris Agreement. It empowers local communities. And it reflects the core mission the World Bank once claimed to uphold.
A Call for True Climate Leadership
It is not too late for course correction. The World Bank must urgently reconsider its direction — and reclaim its role as a leader in climate finance, not a pawn in political gamesmanship.
False solutions like nuclear and fossil gas have no place in a just, equitable energy transition. The world’s developing nations do not need expensive, imported technologies that trap them in decades of debt and dependency. They need real climate finance, real renewables, and real commitment.
Because if the World Bank chooses politics over planet, it won’t just be betraying its mission — it will be complicit in accelerating the climate crisis it claims to fight.
Let the record show: This is not progress. This is sabotage dressed as strategy. And the world — especially those on the frontlines of climate change — deserves far better.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
.jpg)
Post a Comment