Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The ongoing global finance talks between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (WBG) have taken a contentious turn. Governments are being urged not to mention climate change, despite its growing impacts and the pressing need for climate finance.The climate crisis has significant implications for developing countries, which are already paying billions to repair damage from droughts, floods, and storms. The World Bank Group aims to devote 35% of its funding to climate-related activities, but US pressure may hinder these efforts.US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has demanded the removal of some climate finance targets from the World Bank's aims, insisting on an 'all-of-the-above approach to energy' that includes financing for gas, oil, and coal. This move has sparked alarm among other countries, including large developed economies.Experts warn that sidelining climate change discussions would be disastrous for the developing world. Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa thinktank, described the situation as 'beyond absurd', emphasizing that fossil fuels and the climate emergency are inextricably linked.The World Bank is the biggest single source of climate funding, and many donor countries channel their climate finance largely through the multilateral development banks. At the Cop29 UN climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, countries agreed that at least $1.3tn a year should flow to the developing world by 2035 to help countries cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather.Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist, suggested that much could still be achieved without formally labelling projects as climate-related, emphasizing that investing in low-carbon infrastructure and energy systems is crucial for sustainable development.

The economic consequences of an Iran war could have devastating effects on global poverty, with 32 million people at risk of being pushed into poverty worldwide. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) warns that developing countries will bear the brunt of this impact. In a report released amid concerns over a fragile ceasefire, the UNDP highlights a 'triple shock' affecting energy, food, and economic growth. This conflict is reversing international development gains, with uneven regional impacts expected. Alexander De Croo, UNDP administrator and former Belgian prime minister, emphasizes that even if the war ends, its impact will persist, especially in poorer countries where people may be pushed back into poverty. He notes that those who had previously escaped poverty are now at risk of falling back into it. The report outlines three scenarios for the war's impact. In the worst-case scenario, involving six weeks of major disruption to oil and gas production and eight months of higher costs, 32.5 million people globally could fall into poverty. The UNDP uses the upper-middle-income poverty line, an international standard defined as income below $8.30 per person per day, calculated by the World Bank. To mitigate these effects, the UNDP suggests targeted and temporary cash transfers to protect vulnerable households in developing nations, estimating a cost of about $6 billion to neutralize the shocks for those falling below the poverty line. The agency also recommends interventions like temporary subsidies or vouchers for essential services. The news comes as Western governments face criticism for cutting aid spending amid economic pressures and increased defense spending. The UNDP and other international agencies stress the importance of maintaining or increasing development aid to support countries hardest hit by the economic fallout.

The recent ceasefire between the United States, Israel, and Iran has brought a fragile calm to the region, but experts warn that energy prices may take months to normalize. The conflict had a significant impact on global oil and gas supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which 20% of the world's oil and gas exports pass.Iran's response to US-Israeli attacks included choking off the Strait of Hormuz and attacking energy infrastructure in several Gulf countries. This led to soaring prices for energy and byproducts like helium, as well as fertilizers that rely on these inputs, affecting sowing seasons and consumers worldwide, especially in developing countries.Experts stress that a predictable and stable flow of cargo through the strait is needed before markets can stabilize. Currently, only a trickle of vessels are passing through, with five vessels crossing on Wednesday and seven on Thursday, down from 120-140 ships per day before the conflict.Rockford Weitz, a professor at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, described the situation as 'the biggest disruption in the history of global oil markets.' He emphasized that normalization will take time and requires collaboration among global powers and regional players.Additionally, concerns remain about Iran charging toll fees and skyrocketing insurance fees, which could keep oil prices high. However, experts agree that these fees are not the primary cost drivers.The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned of a looming inflation crisis and plans to downgrade its forecast for the world economy. Kristalina Georgieva, IMF managing director, stated that growth will be slower, even if the new peace is durable.For now, oil prices are expected to remain higher than pre-war levels due to the overhang of greater risk premium of supplies out of the Gulf. The situation remains uncertain, with experts closely watching for any side deals, such as a potential agreement between Iraq and Iran, which could impact oil production and prices.

Opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would send a shock wave around the world, senior climate diplomats warned, saying the move would imperil international climate targets, erode the United Kingdom’s reputation as a climate leader and embolden developing countries to exploit their own fossil‑fuel reserves.The UK government faces intense lobbying from the oil industry, Conservative MPs, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, certain trade unions and factions within the Treasury. Yet research shows that new drilling would do little to lower energy prices and would have almost no impact on gas imports.Two of the remaining large North Sea prospects – the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields – sit in a basin that is over 90% depleted and increasingly costly to develop. Even if fully exploited, they would displace only about 1% and 2% of the UK’s gas imports respectively, according to recent analysis.Senior figures in international climate diplomacy described the prospect of new drilling as dangerous for global emissions‑reduction efforts and a step back from the phase‑out of fossil fuels.Lord Nicolas Stern, professor at the London School of Economics, warned that “new drilling and a slowdown in climate action would be bad for growth and for energy security in the UK, and a damaging signal for the world.” He added that the UK’s pioneering climate legislation and its role as the first G7 nation to commit to net‑zero by 2050 give its actions “extra weight” on the global stage.An anonymous senior African negotiator reacted angrily to the proposal, stating that Africa would “reject any proposal for the UK to expand oil drilling” because it is “fundamentally inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement” and would “weaken trust with climate‑vulnerable nations”.Christiana Figueres, former UN climate chief and co‑founder of the Global Optimism think‑tank, argued that true energy independence lies in “scaling clean, domestic energy, not in extending the life of declining industries”. She cautioned that reverting to old‑fashioned oil expansion would lock in infrastructure at odds with the direction of the global energy system.The UK has been a vocal supporter of an upcoming conference in Colombia on the “transition away from fossil fuels”, a pledge made three years ago at COP28 that remains largely unfulfilled. However, the Guardian learned that Ed Miliband, the UK secretary of state for energy security and net‑zero, will not attend; the government’s climate envoy, Rachel Kyte, will travel in his place.Campaigners had urged Miliband’s presence, citing his pivotal role in securing a last‑minute deal at COP30 in Brazil last November.Experts caution that licensing new fields before the Colombian summit could undermine progress in persuading developing nations to forgo fossil‑fuel‑based economies and adopt cleaner energy pathways.Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa think‑tank, warned that a UK approval would “send a shock wave around the world that short‑term interests are being prioritised over long‑term responsibility”. He stressed that many African countries are being asked to leapfrog to clean energy with limited financial support, and that wealthy nations continuing to invest in fossil fuels “undermine this message and diminish their credibility”.Several developing‑country officials echoed this concern, asking, “Why shouldn’t we tap into our own fossil‑fuel resources if the UK is doing so?” They argued that leadership on climate must be consistent with actions.An ally of Miliband praised the UK’s stance, calling “no new exploration licences” a “landmark global leadership position” that shows a major oil‑producing country can align policy with climate science to avoid a 3‑4°C warming scenario.A government spokesperson reaffirmed the administration’s commitment, stating that the UK has placed “clean energy and climate at the heart of its agenda”, and that it will continue to “stop issuing licences to explore new fields, in line with the science and in securing a just transition in the North Sea”.

The United States has been proposing unusual bilateral health agreements to developing countries, mostly in Africa, in exchange for access to sensitive health data and critical minerals. These deals have sparked concerns of exploitation and have been met with resistance from several countries.In November, the US approached Zimbabwean authorities with a proposal that would have provided over $300m in funding in return for sensitive health data. However, Harare felt that the negotiations were 'lopsided' and promptly pulled out.Zambia also pushed back against a similar proposal, citing 'problematic' clauses that sought access to the country's minerals, including copper, cobalt, and lithium. The US had offered $1bn in funding over five years, but Lusaka requested a review of the proposal.Several African countries, including Nigeria and Kenya, have signed the health pacts, but the terms agreed remain unclear.Data or mineral demands in return for health aid are unprecedented in the history of US-Africa relations. Policy experts argue that tying crucial funding to sensitive national assets could have negative consequences for African nations and the US itself.'Supporting global health has clear benefits to the United States in terms of prevention of pandemics that can affect Americans too,' said Sarang Shidore, Africa director at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 'Linking such aid to payoffs in the extraction of critical minerals smacks of exploitative practices.'African nations have long relied on US funding to foot many of their health bills. In 2024, African countries received $5.4bn in US assistance, largely spent on humanitarian, health, and disaster needs.However, the US has argued that aid cuts suit its America First agenda, which prioritizes national interests. The stance has been met with criticism, with some economists arguing that aid is often ineffective and causes overreliance.Washington is now focused on government-to-government deals, which have typically required governments to take on an increasing share of their own health budgets in the next four to five years.Some analysts see this as a positive move to reduce overdependence on foreign funding and force governments to prioritize health spending in their budgets. However, the clauses that Washington is demanding to leverage its aid for data, rare earth elements, and other minerals have caused widespread outrage in some countries.In the case of Zambia, the US reportedly asked for access to the country's critical minerals in return for $1bn over five years. The US also asked for a one-way data-sharing agreement for 10 years.If Lusaka fails to ink a deal, US aid funding to the country will be discontinued, which could mean losing the remnants of funding Zambia still receives from the PEPFAR programme.