If the World Bank is serious about supporting clean, affordable energy for developing nations, then doubling down on nuclear and fossil gas — expensive, harmful, and higher in emissions — contradicts its commitment and will only stagnate progress on global energy transition as a solution to the climate crisis. The Climate Reality Project Philippines maintains that only an accelerated transition to renewable energy can deliver true climate resilience and sustainable development.

World Bank President Ajay Banga’s recent push to remove the institution’s long-standing ban on funding nuclear power projects, alongside expanded support for fossil gas projects, marks a dangerous step back from genuine climate leadership. Rather than steering the Bank toward a genuinely sustainable and just energy future, Banga is rebranding expensive and unclean technologies as solutions for developing countries.

This pivot is not merely misguided, it’s political. With the United States holding a 16% stake in the World Bank — by far the largest of any country — Banga’s pivot is driven less by sound energy policy than by a political need to appease Washington. In the wake of the Trump administration’s renewed exit from the Paris Climate Agreement earlier this year, and broader withdrawal from global institutions like the World Health Organization and the Loss and Damage Fund, the Bank is willing to sacrifice climate leadership for continued American favor.

Meanwhile, Banga’s continued defense of fossil gas as a “transition fuel” lacks credibility on both scientific and justice grounds. Gas remains a planet-warming fossil fuel — one that saddles developing countries with costly infrastructure and long-term dependence. With $120 billion already funneled into gas investments, the Bank is actively undermining the very energy transition it claims to support.

Still, one fundamental question remains: Can nuclear energy and fossil gas truly lower electricity costs in developing countries like the Philippines?

In reality, it will not. Electricity prices in the Philippines are among the highest in Southeast Asia, largely because it remains heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels. Currently, 78% of the nation’s power generation comes from oil, coal, and fossil gas, which are mostly imported, while only 22% is sourced from renewables such as biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. These imported fossil fuels expose the country to volatile price fluctuations, foreign exchange costs, and steep importation costs in the global market.

Doubling down on nuclear and gas will only deepen these dependencies. The Philippines would need to import uranium, plutonium, or fossil gas, all subject to the same geopolitical and market vulnerabilities. Since April 2023, the Philippines has been importing fossil gas at roughly $45 million per shipment. As with fossil fuels, these additional expenses are typically passed on to consumers through the automatic fuel pass-through provision in power contracts, or “pasaload.”

Nuclear power, long avoided by the Bank for good reason, poses an even greater risk. Nuclear projects are capital-intensive, slow to build, and carry significant safety and security risks. For countries already struggling with debt and limited institutional capacity, these are liabilities that distract us from truly renewable solutions.

On generation costs alone, conventional nuclear reactors cost up to six times more than solar. Even fossil gas is no bargain, with generation costs reaching PHP 8.00 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), almost double the PHP 4.40/kWh rate for solar. These figures do not account for the long-term financial burdens of nuclear energy, including waste storage, plant decommissioning, and safety compliance.

The World Bank should not be in the business of greenwashing fossil fuels or reviving technologies that delay the shift to renewables. Developing countries need real climate finance, not false solutions. Banga’s vision may cater to U.S. political whims, but it betrays the World Bank’s mission and the billions who will bear the brunt of the climate crisis.

***