by 
In
2013,
the
World
Bank
declared
it
would
stop
funding
coal
projects
and
would
only
“in
rare
circumstances”
provide
financial
support
for
new
coal
plants.
It
also
said
it
would
“scale
up
efforts
to
improve
energy
efficiency
and
increase
renewable
energy.”
Rather
than
support
coal
projects,
the
bank
said
it
would
“scale
up
its
work
helping
countries
develop
national
and
regional
markets
for
natural
gas,
the
fossil
fuel
with
the
lowest
carbon
intensity.”
But
two
years
later,
the
bank
backtracked
on
natural
gas
and
said
it
would
stop
all
lending
for
oil
and
gas
projects
“except
under
exceptional
circumstances.”
Since
then,
the
bank,
which
claims
its
“role
is
to
reduce
poverty
by
lending
money
to
the
governments
of
its
poorer
members
to
improve
their
economies
and
to
improve
the
standard
of
living
of
their
people,”
has
lost
its
collective
mind.
Rather
than
lending
money
to
poor
countries
so
they
can
develop
more
coal,
oil,
and
natural
gas
projects
—
and,
in
doing
so,
grow
their
economies
and
improve
living
standards
—
the
bank,
which
gets
the
biggest
chunk
of
its
funding
from
the
United
States,
has
become
one
of
the
world’s
biggest
carbon
colonialists.
As
Todd
Moss
explained
here
on
Substack
last
fall,
the
World
Bank
and
other
international
lenders
are
trying
to
impose
decarbonization
policies
on
some
of
the
world’s
poorest
countries,
a
tactic
Moss
rightly
calls
“obscene.”
Exhibit
A
in
the
World
Bank’s
parade
of
obscenities
is
its
decarbonization
plan
for
Guinea-Bissau,
which
the
bank
itself
says
is
“one
of
the
world’s
poorest
and
most
fragile
countries.”
Let’s
take
a
look.
On
December
19,
the
World
Bank
posted
a
note
on
Twitter
about
its
report
on
Guinea-Bissau,
a
tiny
country
with
only
2.2
million
people
on
the
west
coast
of
Africa.
The
bank
touted
its
new
“country
and
climate
development
report”
for
Guinea-Bissau,
which
it
says
is
aiming
“to
reduce
its
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
30%
by
2030.”
In
the
posting
on
Twitter,
the
agency
explained,
“With
only
31%
of
the
population
having
electricity,
Guinea-Bissau
faces
challenges
in
achieving
universal
access.
Yet,
huge
potential
is
ahead!”
(Note
the
exclamation
point!)
Telling
a
poverty-stricken
country
like
Guinea-Bissau
to
cut
its
CO2
emissions
is
akin
to
pushing
diet
pills
during
a
famine.
Or
maybe
it’s
like
selling
lawn
sprinklers
during
a
flood.
Whatever
the
analogy,
the
entire
notion
is
Total
Bonkers
Crazytown™.
Why
should
you
care
about
a
country
whose
main
export
is
cashew
nuts?
Why
care
about
a
place
where
the
poverty
rate
is
over
70%?
Why
care
about
a
country
so
small
that
few
people
could
find
it
on
a
map?
Maybe
you
don’t
need
to
care
about
Guinea-Bissau,
but
you
should
care
about
US
funding
for
the
World
Bank,
an
agency
that
has
been
hijacked
by
climate
catastrophists.
Last
November,
President
Joe
Biden
announced
that
the
US
would
contribute
$4
billion
to
the
World
Bank’s
International
Development
Association
fund
over
three
years.
As
Reuters
explained,
Biden’s
pledge
was
“a
record
and
substantially
exceeds
the
$3.5
billion”
the
US
pledged
in
2021.
Before
the
US
gives
any
more
money
to
the
World
Bank,
it
should
examine
its
lending
policies
and,
in
particular,
its
decarbonization
plan
for
Guinea-Bissau.
That
report
is
something
to
behold.
It’s
a
78-page
demonstration
of
everything
wrong
with
how
elite
technocrats
think
about
poverty
in
developing
countries.
The
report
repeats
the
same
message
nearly
two
dozen
times:
Guinea-Bissau
should
be
using
more
solar.
Or
rather,
it
should
be
“Accelerating
the
deployment
of
solar
PV
with
storage.”
The
report
notes
that
Guinea-Bissau’s
“offshore
territories
harbor
oil
reserves.”
Nevertheless,
it
declares
that
the
country
“needs
an
integrated
energy
policy
that
includes
a
mandate
to
phase
out
heavy
fuel
oil-based
generation
and
sets
clear
targets
and
timelines
for
renewable
energy
development
and
energy
efficiency.”
Right.
The
technocrats
at
the
World
Bank
want
the
country’s
residents
to
use
solar
and
batteries,
and
they
should
be
using
less
energy,
not
more.
The
technocrats
want
this
in
a
place
where
7
out
of
10
people
don’t
even
have
electricity.
They
want
this
in
a
place
where
the
per-capita
GDP
is
less
than
$1,000!
They
want
this
in
a
place
where,
according
to
the
bank,
“Wood,
charcoal,
and
agricultural
biomass
make
up
about
90%
of
primary
energy
consumption.”
They
want
this
in
a
country
where
the
unemployment
rate
is
nearly
26%
and
the
country’s
GDP
is
about
$2.1
billion.
For
comparison,
consider
this:
the
World
Bank’s
administrative
budget
is
$3.5
billion!
Thus,
the
World
Bank,
which
employs
10,000
people,
spends
about
50%
more
every
year
on
salaries,
office
space,
and
Cheez-Its
than
all
of
the
money
generated
by
all
of
the
people
of
Guinea-Bissau.
And
yet
—
and
yet
—
the
World
Bank
is
so
opposed
to
hydrocarbons
that
it
thinks
Guinea-Bissau
should
rely
on
the
two-legged
stool
of
renewables
and
efficiency.
The
Guinea-Bissau
decarbonization
plan
is
just
one
of
numerous
reports
the
World
Bank
has
produced
over
the
past
few
years
offering
the
same
alt-energy
prescription.
Here’s
one
published
in
2023
for
Côte
d’Ivoire,
another
impoverished
African
country.
In
his
Substack
piece
from
last
October,
titled
“Ridiculous
decarbonization,”
Todd
Moss
wrote
about
how
cabinet
ministers
from
yet
another
impoverished
country,
São
Tomé
&
Príncipe,
were
presenting
their
decarbonization
plans
to
officials
from
the
World
Bank
and
International
Monetary
Fund.
He
said
the
meeting
embodied
“everything
wrong
about
climate
policy
toward
the
poorest
countries.”
He
continued,
saying,
“Extremely
poor,
low-emitting
countries
like
São
Tomé
&
Príncipe
do
not
need
decarbonization
plans.
They
need
growth
plans.”
Moss
is
right.
So,
too,
is
Vijaya
Ramachandran
of
the
Breakthrough
Institute,
who,
in
2021,
declared
that
“Pursuing
climate
ambitions
on
the
backs
of
the
poorest
people
in
the
world
is
not
just
hypocritical
—
it
is
immoral,
unjust,
and
green
colonialism
at
its
worst.”
(Ramachandran
was
on
the
Power
Hungry
Podcast
in
2022.)
Now
that
DOGE
and
the
Trump
administration
are
scrutinizing
all
federal
spending,
they
should
examine
the
money
the
US
gives
to
the
World
Bank
and
other
lenders.
The
United
States
should
not
give
money
to
international
entities
that
oppose
the
use
of
hydrocarbons.
Instead,
it
should
promote
a
global
agenda
that
embraces
energy
realism
and
energy
humanism.
Modern
economies
aren’t
built
with
solar
panels,
wind
turbines,
and
batteries.
They
are
built
with
hydrocarbons.
It’s
time
for
the
World
Bank
to
accept
that
hydrocarbons
are
essential
for
economic
growth
and
human
development.
It
should
return
to
its
mission
of
reducing
poverty
and
improving
living
standards.
And
if
the
World
Bank
refuses
to
embrace
a
pro-energy,
pro-human
stance,
the
US
shouldn’t
fund
it.
This
piece
first
appeared
at
Robert
Bryce
Substack.
Robert
Bryce
is
a
Texas-based
author,
journalist,
film
producer,
and
podcaster.
His
articles
have
appeared
in
a
myriad
of
publications
including
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
New
York
Times,
Forbes,
Time,
Austin
Chronicle,
and
Sydney
Morning
Herald.
Photo:
courtesy
Robert
Bryce
Substack
Go to Source
Author: Robert Bryce
