Opinion>Opinions - Energy and Environment

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Development orgs should focus on poverty, not trendy causes

Comments:

by Bjorn Lomborg, opinion contributor - 04/13/26 10:00 AM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Bjorn Lomborg, opinion contributor - 04/13/26 10:00 AM ET

Comments:

Link copied

AP Photo/David Goldman

More than 10,000 delegates, finance ministers, and central bankers have gathered in Washington this week for the World Bank and IMF Spring Meetings. Their stated goal is to accelerate global development, drive economic growth, and lift billions out of poverty.

That mission remains vital. But too many development institutions have lost sight of what the world’s poorest people actually need.

Flush with funding from taxpayers in wealthy nations, they increasingly prioritize elite Western concerns — gender, social issues, and climate change — over the basics that matter most: better education, health care, and reliable energy.

Nowhere is this disconnect clearer than in their growing climate fixation. The World Bank proudly reports that in its latest fiscal year, 48 percent of its funding went to so-called “climate finance,” up from 44 percent the year before, and exceeding its own 45 percent target. To its credit, it emphasizes that these projects can often do more than just deliver climate benefits. But that still means more than $39 billion redirected toward climate-themed projects.

Across all multilateral development banks, spending on climate initiatives for low- and middle-income countries topped $85 billion in 2024. The African Development Bank has gone further than most: Climate finance now accounts for 49 percent of its portfolio, and for 2025 it announced it will aim for 100 percent of projects to incorporate climate considerations.

This is a profound misallocation. When Africans are asked directly what they worry about most, climate change barely registers. An Afrobarometer survey across 39 African countries, interviewing more than 50,000 people, found that respondents ranked unemployment, the economy, health, education, poverty, roads, electricity, hunger, and corruption as their top concerns. Climate change ranked near the bottom — 31st out of 34 priorities.

When a child could die tonight from a preventable disease, no family cares about shaving a fraction of a degree from global temperatures a century from now. The well-heeled delegates in Washington — whose own children enjoy excellent health care, nutrition, and education — can afford to obsess over temperature differences a century into the future. They may even convince themselves they are helping the poor by focusing on climate, but they are not. This is mission creep, and it is immoral.

Consider one flagship development initiative: the World Bank and African Development Bank’s plan to deliver electricity to 300 million Africans by 2030. This is actually an excellent goal, but the execution leaves something to be desired. Despite rhetoric about an “all of the above” energy policy, much of the “Mission 300” energy plan appears to be designed heavily around renewable energy, irrespective of whether this will deliver the best result for Africa.

Plentiful, reliable and cheap energy is the foundation of prosperity. The rest of the world runs on fossil fuels, which still supply 81 percent of the world’s energy and more than 60 percent of its electricity. The development banks should fund what works for Africans, not what satisfies rich-world climate ideology.

Solar and wind can play a role where they make sense, but they cannot yet deliver the constant, affordable electricity that powers agriculture and drives industry. Gas and coal remain the practical bridge to prosperity for hundreds of millions.

Indeed, leaders of the development institutions would do well to remember that what counts is not empty rhetoric and trite slogans like ensuring “a livable planet,” but concrete results. The good news is that far better options exist for spending than vanity climate projects.

Instead of pouring resources into low-return climate projects, the World Bank, IMF, and other institutions should prioritize high-impact investments with proven returns.

In poor countries, 334 million primary-school children — 79 percent of the total — fail to learn basic reading, writing, and arithmetic. Teaching children at their own level using low-cost tablets and software costs just $31 per child per year, yet it triples learning gains. The result: roughly $2,000 in higher lifetime earnings per child. Every dollar invested delivers $65 in social benefits.

Another high-impact area: land tenure reform. Secure property rights let farmers invest in their land, access credit, and boost productivity. Each dollar spent generates more than $18 in social benefits.

Some health investm