A Bank for the Planet

The idea is simple, and long overdue: a dedicated international bank whose sole job is to fund climate and biodiversity projects in the developing world. No competing agendas, no geopolitical strings attached—just green finance, done well.

WHERE THE IDEA CAME FROM

Three independent voices have arrived at the same conclusion.

Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff floated the idea of a “World Carbon Bank” back in 2019, arguing that existing institutions have limited climate expertise and too many competing priorities. In 2023, former World Bank Vice President Hafez Ghanem published The World Needs a Green Bank, laying out eight reasons to make it happen. Kenya’s President Ruto echoed the call at the Paris Summit for a New Global Financing Pact that same year. More recently, author John Ure reached the same conclusion independently in his 2026 book Climate Change and Carbon Markets: Late or Too Late? (Springer Nature).

The convergence of these voices—from academia, international finance, politics, and publishing—suggests the moment has arrived.

WHAT WOULD IT ACTUALLY DO?

An International Green Bank (IGB) would focus exclusively on helping emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs) attract both public and private investment into climate mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity projects. It would also support Indigenous peoples and local communities—groups often left behind by conventional finance. Crucially, it wouldn’t try to replace existing development banks. It would complement them, filling the gaps they leave and helping to coordinate the currently fragmented landscape of green finance.

Among its key roles:

Build local capacity — training local professionals in monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), reducing expensive reliance on overseas consultants and strengthening accountability.
Align green taxonomies — helping countries agree on what counts as a “green investment,” following the lead of initiatives like the Multi-Jurisdiction Common Ground Taxonomy, which already brings China, the EU, and Singapore into alignment.
Develop risk expertise — becoming a world leader in assessing and managing the specific financial and governance risks of climate projects in developing countries.
Promote technology transfer — encouraging and co-funding the sharing of technologies like grid innovations, wave energy, green building design, and regenerative farming with developing nations.

WHO WOULD RUN IT?

Governance is where the IGB would break new ground. Rather than replicating the donor-dominated model of institutions like the World Bank, it would give genuine power to all stakeholders.

Three groups would share governance: donor countries (including China, India, the EU, Japan, and South Korea); private-sector organisations buying green bonds; and civil society groups.

Importantly, decisions would require a majority of both donors and beneficiaries—borrowing from the fairer model used by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

HOW WOULD IT BE FUNDED?

There’s no shortage of potential sources:

Governments channelling part of their existing COP commitments into the IGB.
Pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and insurers investing in IGB-issued green bonds.
Corporations buying green bonds at rates slightly below treasury rates as a tangible climate commitment.
Carbon credits, provided they meet rigorous integrity standards under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
Consolidation of existing green funds there are currently 99 operating globally, many of which could be more effective if channelled through a single coordinating institution.
WHY NOW?

The financial gap is stark. The Climate Policy Initiative estimates that $6 trillion a year is needed globally for climate action, but only $2 trillion is currently being mobilised leaving an annual shortfall of at least $4 trillion. Developing economies alone will need $2.4 trillion annually by 2030.

Meanwhile, the 2026 UNFCCC NDC Synthesis Report shows that countries are increasingly embedding net-zero targets into long-term strategies—the political will is growing. And global progress on aligning green investment taxonomies means the foundations for a functioning international green finance system are finally being laid.

The IGB wouldn’t be a silver bullet. But as a focused, independent, and genuinely collaborative institution, it could be the catalyst the world’s climate finance system badly needs.

John Ure is the author of Climate Change and Carbon Markets: Late or Too Late? (Springer Nature, January 2026).