Connect with us

Finance

Multilateral banks are key to financing the fight against global warming. Here is how they work

Published

on

Multilateral banks are key to financing the fight against global warming. Here is how they work

As climate change leads to a seemingly endless stream of weather disasters around the world, countries are struggling to adapt to the new reality. Preparing to better withstand hurricanes, floods, heat waves, droughts and wildfires will take hundreds of billions of dollars.

And then there is confronting the root cause of climate change—the burning of fossil fuels like coal, gasoline and oil—by transitioning to clean energies like wind and solar.

That will take trillions of dollars.

Enter climate finance, a general term that means different things to different people but boils down to: paying for projects to adapt to and combat the cause of climate change. Financing related to climate change is especially important for developing countries, which don’t have the same resources or access to credit that rich countries do.

International mega banks, funded by taxpayer dollars, are the biggest, fastest-growing source of climate finance for the developing world. Called multilateral development banks because they get contributions from various countries, there are only a handful of these banks in the world, the World Bank the largest among them.

Advertisement

How these banks allocate resources are some of the weightiest decisions made in defining how poorer nations can respond to climate change. They were a key reason why, in 2022, the world met a goal countries had set in 2009 to supply developing nations with $100 billion annually to address climate change.

At the annual U.N. climate conference that opens Monday in Azerbaijan, global leaders are expected to discuss how to generate trillions of dollars for climate finance in the years to come. The nonprofit research group Climate Policy Initiative estimates the world needs about five times the current annual amount of climate financing to limit warming to 1.5 C (2.7 degrees F) since the late 1800s. Currently, global average temperatures are about 1.3 C (2.3 degrees F) higher.

Image

A new goal needs to reach higher and hold institutions and governments accountable to their promises, said Tim Hirschel-Burns, an expert at Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center.

“The core of it is getting a goal that is going to catalyze the actions that fills the really significant climate finance gap that developing countries face, which is much bigger than $100 billion,” he said.

Advertisement

As the international community has come to accept the reality of climate change, the debate has shifted to the question of where the money to fund the energy transition will come from, said Dharshan Wignarajah, director of Climate Policy Initiative’s London-based office.

“The question is not ‘are we going to transition?’, but ‘how quickly can we engineer the transition?’” said Wignarajah, who helped lead the climate talks, called the Conference of Parties, when the United Kingdom was host in 2021. “That has forced finance to be ever-more prominent at the COP discussions, because ultimately it comes down to who pays.”

Image

FILE – People examine the damage at an area badly affected by a flash flood in Tanah Datar, West Sumatra, Indonesia, May 13, 2024. (AP Photo/Ali Nayaka, File)

Advertisement

Developing countries most dependent on multilateral banks

Developing nations are much more reliant on these banks for financing climate projects than industrialized countries.

In the U.S. and Canada, commercial banks and corporations provided funding for more than half of climate-friendly projects in 2022, according to Climate Policy Initiative. In sub-Saharan Africa, those private lenders only accounted for 7%.

This is because it is harder for developing countries to get low interest rates.

“If you’re Kenya, and you want to borrow from private lenders, they might charge you 10% interest rates because your credit rating isn’t very good,” Hirschel-Burns said.

But the multilateral banks have better credit ratings than many countries do. For example, the International Development Association — an arm of the World Bank and the top international aid provider to Kenya — has the highest possible rating from Moody’s Investor Service, while Kenya itself has a junk rating.

Advertisement

The banks borrow money with that better rating, then lend to developing countries in turn, offering a more reasonable rate than governments could get if they borrowed directly from private lenders.

Some bank projects work against climate goals

The multilateral banks’ development goals are wide-ranging. They seek to improve people’s health and the environment, expand energy access and end poverty. Addressing energy access has meant the banks have provided billions of dollars for fossil fuel power plants, according to an AP analysis, though their policies have improved and fewer such projects have been funded in recent years.

Investment in fossil fuels continues to rise worldwide, reaching $1.1 trillion in 2024, according to the International Energy Agency. And multilateral banks continue to rank among the biggest funders of fossil fuel-prolonging projects, helping to “lock in a high-carbon pathway” for countries, according to a report by the Clean Air Fund, which lobbies for the funding of projects to improve air quality.

“This is development aid we’re talking about, and it should be assisting countries to leapfrog,” said Jane Burston, CEO of the Clean Air Fund, referring to the idea that developing countries could industrialize with renewable energies and skip over development that rich nations historically made with fossil fuels.

“It’s baffling why development assistance is being given to something that continues to make people unhealthy as well as harms the planet,” she added.

Advertisement
Image

FILE – James Tshuma, a farmer in Mangwe district in southwestern Zimbabwe, stands in the middle of his dried up crop field amid a drought, in Zimbabwe, March, 22, 2024. (AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi, File)

Seemingly contradictory actions can be seen in a loan made by an arm of the World Bank, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It loaned $105 million toward rehabilitating coal plants in India, with their last loans toward the project going out in 2018, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Coal spews carbon pollution, contributing to climate change and creating breathing problems for people who are exposed. However, the improvements made coal plants more efficient and reduced their greenhouse gas emissions, according to project documents.

Advertisement

The Clean Air Fund’s report estimated the World Bank provided $2.7 billion in “fossil fuel prolonging finance” between 2018 and 2022. During that time, the bank also loaned about 32 times the amount for renewables as they did for non-renewables in India, including $120 million for rooftop solar.

“Renewable energy support is always our first choice as we work to provide access to electricity to the nearly 700 million people who still cannot power their homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses,” a World Bank spokesperson said in a statement.

The bank’s policies still “selectively support natural gas as a transition fuel” if its research shows the project is low risk to the climate, the spokesperson said. The bank’s recent policies require rigorous vetting for every project to make sure its investments reduce climate impacts.

The World Bank delivered $42.6 billion in climate finance in its most recent fiscal year, a 10% increase from the year before. And at the most recent COP, the bank promised nearly half of its lending will soon go toward climate finance.

In Vietnam, about half of power generation comes from fossil fuels, primarily coal power. The Asian Development Bank loaned about $900 million on coal in Vietnam, with their spending on the fossil fuel in the country ending in 2017. The bank’s updated climate policies “will not support coal mining, processing, storage, and transportation, nor any new coal-fired power generation,” the bank said in a statement. The bank put $9.8 billion toward climate finance in 2023, and aims to finance $100 billion in climate-friendly projects between 2019 and 2030.

Advertisement

The country’s biggest growth area for energy is in wind. The Global Energy Monitor ranks Vietnam seventh in the world in planned wind power. And the Asian Development Bank committed about $60 million in loans toward wind energy in Vietnam between 2021 and 2022.

Image

FILE – Residents rescue kittens from the roof of a flooded home in Cobija, Bolivia, Feb. 28, 2024. (AP Photo/Juan Karita, File)

The banks have made broad commitments in recent years to align with the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement. But those promises leave pathways open to continue funding fossil fuels, said Bronwen Tucker, global public finance co-manager at Oil Change International.

Advertisement

According to the green group’s monitoring of the banks’ commitments, all nine of the major banks tracked can fund gas projects in at least some cases. Rich countries should step in and fill the trillions of dollars in need for climate action with donations to less developed countries “to avoid climate breakdown and save lives,” Tucker said.

“The MDBs can’t be climate bankers if they are still fossil bankers,” she said. “Relying on banks that are locking in fossil fuels and the worst-ever debt crisis is not working.”

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Advertisement

Finance

When making travel plans, timing and financing are major considerations

Published

on

When making travel plans, timing and financing are major considerations

For the true travel fan, there’s often a built-in conflict on how best to plan for your next adventure.

On the one hand, the world awaits. Spin the globe, cover your eyes and point. Or, throw a dart at the map! Then it’s time to dig in and research your next dream destination.

On the other hand, getting the best bargain can be a last-minute proposition. There may be a fare sale today, but not tomorrow. How does that mash up with your bicycle tour in Italy? Or your friend’s wedding in Hawaii?

Spreading out all the options on the table can be daunting. It’s a bit like taking a sip from the fire hose. And we all have varying degrees of tolerance for changing prices, tiny seats and geopolitical uncertainty.

So let’s take a snapshot of what’s happening now, knowing you won’t likely drink from the same river, or fire hose, twice.

Advertisement

Since most of today’s snapshots are on the phone, there are some handy settings: You can zoom in for a closer look at that fruit and cheese platter, frame it up nicely for a good shot of your seatmate, or look out the window and get a nice view from 30,000 feet.

Fares we love. There are just a few fares to zoom in on right now.

Anchorage-Chicago. Three airlines will offer nonstop flights this summer: Alaska, United and American. Alaska and United fly the route year-round. There are just a couple of months where travelers have to stop in Denver or Seattle on the way. Right now, the Basic price is $349 round-trip. United has the least-expensive Main price of $429 round-trip. Alaska charges more: $449-$469 round-trip.

The rate to Chicago is steady throughout the summer, as long as you’re open to flying on other airlines, including Delta and now Southwest, starting May 15.

Anchorage-Dallas. Choose from four airlines with competitive prices. United and Delta offer great rates starting on March 30, for travel all summer and into the fall for $331 round-trip in basic economy. Remember: Basic economy means you’ll be sitting in the middle seat back by the potty. There are few, if any, advance seat assignments permitted and you’re the last to board. Don’t expect to accrue many frequent flyer points. Alaska will give you 30%. Delta and American offer none. United is axing MileagePlus points for basic travelers soon.

Advertisement

Delta and United offer the chance to pay $100 more for pre-reserved seats and mileage credit. Of course, they may charge you more for a nicer seat on the plane. But that’s another story.

American Airlines charges a little bit more, about $20 more for a round-trip, to fly nonstop. It’s a nice flight.

Anchorage-Albuquerque. Delta is targeting this route with a nice rate: $281 round-trip in Basic or $381 in Main. But it’s just between May 23 and June 29. Why? Well, it lines up nicely with Southwest’s launch on May 15. Who knows why airlines cut their fares during a traditionally busy season? It’s just a hunch.

Looking at airfares more broadly, there are a few more bargain rates out there, but most only go through May 20. Airlines are hoping for a robust summer — so prices go up after that.

For example, between March 29 and May 20, Alaska Air offers a nonstop from Anchorage to Los Angeles for $257 round-trip in basic. For pre-assigned seats and full mileage credit, the main price is $337 round-trip. Prices go up to $437 round-trip in the summer.

Advertisement

The view from 30,000 feet is pretty clear, although past performance is no guarantee of future results. Several carriers, including American, Delta, United, Southwest and Alaska are adding flights for the summer. There will be robust competition, which means lower fares. Just last week, Alaska Air dropped the price from Anchorage to Seattle to $210 round-trip. That rate is gone, but others will come along.

Charge it. Banks own the airlines by virtue of their popular credit cards. Do they own you, too?

Sifting through the various credit card offers and bonus points emails, it’s easy to forget that banks, not travelers, are the airlines’ biggest customers. At a Bank of America conference last year, Alaska Airlines reported it receives about 15% of its total revenue from its loyalty plan. That adds up to more than 1.7 billion in 2024. Delta has a similar deal with American Express, which paid the airline about $8.2 billion last year.

Think about that the next time the flight attendants are handing out credit card applications in the aisle.

Zooming in, if you’re going to play the Atmos loyalty game on Alaska Airlines, you have to have an Alaska Airlines credit card from Bank of America.

Advertisement

I carry the plain-old Alaska Air card. I used to have two of them, primarily for the $99 companion fare. That’s still a compelling offer. But to get that benefit, you have to charge it on an Alaska Airlines Visa card.

So the question is: Is it worth it to pay $395 per year for the new Summit Visa card from Bank of America?

If you use your credit card for your business or if you regularly charge thousands of dollars every month, the Summit card may be the card for you.

One of the foundational benefits is for every $2 you charge, you earn one status point toward your next elite tier, such as titanium. It’s possible to charge your way to the top tier of the frequent flyer ladder without ever stepping on a plane. If that’s your level of charge-card use, then the Summit is for you. For the lesser Ascent card like mine, you earn one status point for every $3 spent.

For a little wider view, consider that your other travel costs, including accommodations, can hit your budget a lot harder than an airline ticket. It’s one reason I carry a flexible spend credit card in addition to my Alaska Airlines card. Here’s a snapshot of some popular options:

Advertisement

1. Bilt Rewards. I finally signed up for a Bilt account, although I haven’t yet received my card. There are two big benefits with Bilt: You can charge your rent and transfer points to Alaska Airlines. There also is a scheme to charge your mortgage, but it’s more convoluted. But the charge-your-rent option is a stand-alone gold star for the Bilt program, even if you don’t fly Alaska Airlines.

In addition to the link with Alaska Airlines, Bilt points transfer to other oneworld carriers like British, Japan Airlines and Qatar Air. Hotel partners include Hyatt, my favorite, and Hilton. A big bonus comes with the “Obsidian” card, $95 per year: three points for every dollar spent on groceries.

But there’s also a Bilt card with no annual fee. And there are no extra fees incurred when you charge your rent.

2. American Express. If you fly on Delta, the American Express card is a natural choice.

The two companies really are joined at the hip. The last American Express card I had was a Delta “Gold” card, which included a 70,000-point signup bonus. Cardholders get a free checked bag, although Delta offers two free checked bags for SkyMiles members who live in Alaska, and 15% off award tickets.

Advertisement

The Delta card is free for the first year, then $150 per year thereafter.

There is a dizzying array of American Express cards available, including some with no annual fee. But with Delta there is a narrowed-down selection, including one that’s more than $800 per year. That includes lounge access and some other benefits, including a companion pass.

American Express cardholders also can transfer their points to Hilton and Bonvoy as well as to 15 other airlines.

Capital One offers the Venture X card, which offers cardholders 75,000 points plus a $300 travel credit at their in-house travel service. The cost is $395 per year. Get the slimmed-down Venture card for just $95 per year. You still can earn the 75,000 bonus points after spending $4,000 in the first three months. Plus, there’s a $250 credit with Capital One Travel.

Airline partners include EMirates, Singapore Air, Japan Air and EVA Air, from Taiwan. Hotel partners include Hilton and Marriott.

Advertisement

I’ve carried several Chase cards for years. Right now I have the Chase Sapphire Preferred card, for which I received 80,000 bonus points. But that was several years ago. More recently, I got the Chase-affiliated Ink Business Cash card to harvest a 90,000 point bonus. Previously, I carried the Chase Sapphire Reserve. I got a 100,000 point bonus for that. But I dropped that card when the fee went up to $795 per year.

Stacking the cards like that — getting more than one — has helped me to get more bonus points, both for American Express and for Chase.

The best value for Chase points that I’ve found is for Hyatt Hotels. Right now, it’s the best redemption ration, but that can change. Chase also allows for transfers to Emirates, United, Singapore Air and Southwest, among others. The Chase travel portal is managed by Expedia, so you can redeem points for other hotels at a lower redemption rate.

The long view: All airline mileage plans are now credit card loyalty plans. Terms and conditions change, along with signup bonuses and other features of the cards. Last year, Chase dropped its airport restaurant feature, which offered $29 per person at select restaurants in Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland. A couple of years ago, the Priority Pass affiliated with Chase dropped the Alaska Airlines lounges as a partner.

It takes some time and effort to keep up with the programs and get the best value. But airline credit card plans are here to stay, even if the frequent-flyer programs are watered down year after year.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Finance

Lawmakers target ‘free money’ home equity finance model

Published

on

Lawmakers target ‘free money’ home equity finance model

Key points:

  • Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill that would classify home equity investments (HEIs) and shared equity contracts as residential mortgages.
  • Industry leaders have mobilized through a newly formed trade group to influence how HEIs are regulated.
  • The outcome could reshape underwriting standards, return structures and capital markets strategy for HEI providers.

A fast-growing home equity financing model that promises homeowners cash without monthly payments is facing mounting scrutiny from state lawmakers — and the industry behind it is mobilizing to shape the outcome.

In Pennsylvania, House Bill 2120 would classify shared equity contracts — often marketed as home equity investments (HEIs), shared appreciation agreements or home equity agreements — as residential mortgages under state law.

While the proposal is still in committee, the debate unfolding in Harrisburg reflects a broader national effort to determine whether these products are truly a new category of equity-based investment — or if they function as mortgages and belong under existing consumer lending laws.

A classification fight over home equity capture

HB 2120 would amend Pennsylvania’s Loan Interest and Protection Law by explicitly including shared appreciation agreements in the residential mortgage definition. If passed, shared equity contracts would be subject to the same interest caps, licensing standards and consumer protections that apply to traditional mortgage lending.

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Arvind Venkat after constituent Wendy Gilch — a fellow with the consumer watchdog Consumer Policy Center — brought concerns to his office. Gilch has since worked with Venkat as a partner in shaping the proposal.

Gilch initially began examining the products after seeing advertisements describe them as offering cash with “no debt,” “no interest” and “no monthly payments.”

Advertisement

“It sounds like free money,” she said. “But in many cases, you’re giving up a growing share of your home’s equity over time.”

Breaking down the debate

Shared equity providers (SEPs) argue that their products are not loans. Instead of charging interest or requiring monthly payments, companies provide homeowners with a lump sum in exchange for a share of the home’s future appreciation, which is typically repaid when the home is sold or refinanced.

The Coalition for Home Equity Partnership (CHEP) — an industry-led group founded in 2025 by Hometap, Point and Unlock — emphasizes that shared equity products have zero monthly payments or interest, no minimum income requirements and no personal liability if a home’s value declines.

Venkat, however, argues that the mechanics look familiar and argues that “transactions secured by homes should include transparency and consumer protections” — especially since, for many many Americans, their home is their most valuable asset. 

“These agreements involve appraisals, liens, closing costs and defined repayment triggers,” he said. “If it looks like a mortgage and functions like a mortgage, it should be treated like one.”

Advertisement

The bill sits within Pennsylvania’s anti-usury framework, which caps returns on home-secured lending in the mid-single digits. Venkat said he’s been told by industry representatives that they require returns approaching 18-20% to make the model viable — particularly if contracts are later resold to outside investors. According to CHEP, its members provide scenario-based disclosures showing potential outcomes under varying assumptions, with the final cost depending on future home values and term length.

In a statement shared with Real Estate News, CHEP President Cliff Andrews said the group supports comprehensive regulation of shared equity products but argues that automatically classifying them as mortgages applies a framework “that was never designed for, and cannot meaningfully be applied to, equity-based financing instruments.”

As currently drafted, HB 2120 would function as a “de facto ban” on shared equity products in Pennsylvania, Andrews added.

Real Estate News also reached out to Unison, a major vendor in the space, for comment on HB 2120. Hometap and Unlock deferred to CHEP when reached for comment. 

A growing regulatory patchwork

Pennsylvania is not alone in seeking to legislate regulations around HEIs. Maryland, Illinois and Connecticut have also taken steps to clarify that certain home equity option agreements fall under mortgage lending statutes and licensing requirements.

Advertisement

In Washington state, litigation over whether a shared equity contract qualified as a reverse mortgage reached the Ninth Circuit before the case was settled and the opinion vacated. Maine and Oregon have considered similar proposals, while Massachusetts has pursued enforcement action against at least one provider in connection with home equity investment practices.

Taken together, these developments suggest a state-by-state regulatory patchwork could emerge in the absence of a uniform federal framework.

The push for homeowner protections

The debate over HEIs arrives amid elevated interest rates and reduced refinancing activity — conditions that have increased demand for alternative equity-access products. 

But regulators appear increasingly focused on classification — specifically whether the absence of monthly payments and traditional interest charges changes the legal character of a contract secured by a lien on a home.

Gilch argues that classification is central to consumer clarity. “If it’s secured by your home and you have to settle up when you sell or refinance, homeowners should have the same protections they expect with any other home-based transaction,” she said.

Advertisement

Lessons from prior home equity controversies

For industry leaders, the regulatory scrutiny may feel familiar. In recent years, unconventional home equity models have drawn enforcement actions and litigation once questions surfaced around contract structure, title encumbrances or consumer understanding.

MV Realty, which offered upfront payments in exchange for long-term listing agreements, faced regulatory action in multiple states over how those agreements were recorded and disclosed. EasyKnock, which structured sale-leaseback transactions aimed at unlocking home equity, abruptly shuttered operations in late 2024 following litigation and mounting regulatory pressure.

Shared equity investment contracts differ structurally from both models, but those episodes underscore a broader pattern: novel housing finance products can scale quickly in tight credit cycles. Just as quickly, these home equity models encounter regulatory intervention once policymakers begin examining how they fit within existing law — and the formation of CHEP signals that SEPs recognize the stakes.

For real estate executives and housing finance leaders, the outcome of the classification fight may prove consequential. If shared equity contracts are treated as mortgages in more states, underwriting standards, return structures and secondary market economics could shift.

If lawmakers instead carve out a distinct regulatory category, the model may retain more flexibility — but face ongoing state-by-state negotiation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Published

on

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.

Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.

Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.

As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.

He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.

Advertisement

Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.

Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.

As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.

Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.

In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.

Advertisement

“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”

—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.

Continue Reading

Trending