I don’t know about you, but I was quite pleased when the UK’s new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, moved Ed Miliband from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) to the Foreign Office. It seemed like a shrewd move, allowing a less doctrinaire Secretary of State at DESNZ to row back from the worst excesses carried on there to date, while persuading Mr Miliband to depart the DESNZ role quietly. After all, probably the only other post that would have induced him to move would have been that of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it seems that had he taken that position, Mr Burnham might have encountered difficulties with the bond markets.

Now, however, I’m having second thoughts. According to the Guardian Mr Miliband’s replacement at DESNZ, Miatta Fahnbulleh:

…went on to advise Ed Miliband during his Labour leadership and led the New Economics Foundation thinktank until last year. The group is seen as sitting on Labour’s left. Fahnbulleh has pushed hard for serious action on the climate crisis and has advocated more urgency in the UK’s response…

The Mail says (my thanks to Jit for unearthing this):

And when it comes to Net Zero, Miatta is just as radical – if not more so – than her old boss. In 2019, she proposed spending a staggering 5 per cent of GDP on green infrastructure, the equivalent of £140billion a year, and more than the entirety of Britain’s defence spending.

In November 2021, she called on the then-Tory government to spend £30billion a year on Net Zero. She also demanded that Britain fulfil its ‘decade-old promise to mobilise £74billion of climate finance from rich nations to help the global south with the impacts of climate change’.

Meanwhile, after all the hints that Mr Burnham’s government may be a bit more pragmatic than its predecessor and might permit the Rosebank oil and Jackdaw gas gas fields to proceed with extraction of fossil fuels, we now learn that Mr Burnham, when Mayor of Greater Manchester, backed the potentially hugely damaging Climate and Nature Bill:

24th November, 2025: Andy Burnham and Clare Ward join hundreds of cross-party local leaders, cabinet members and councillors in signalling support for a climate statutory duty as the Devolution Bill heads back to Parliament today.

Labour Mayors Burnham and Ward have signed a Friends of the Earth “climate plan” pledge calling for “statutory responsibilities” on climate as over 440 councillors from across England and from almost every major party sign an open letter in support of a climate duty and strengthened nature duties to be included in the Devolution Bill.

All in all, then, it may be that the removal of Mr Miliband from DESNZ won’t have made any difference at all with regard to the UK’s energy and net zero policies. But what of Mr Miliband, now that he’s the UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs? You might think that he’s got a lot on his plate, what with the on-off hostilities between Iran and the USA (and its Gulf allies); the fraught situation between Israel and Iran’s proxies in the Middle East; the ongoing war in Ukraine and the Russian President’s provocative behaviour towards the west, including the UK; the appalling situation in South Sudan; and much more. That being the case, you might think that he would be settling down to prioritise these issues, and while he may indeed be doing so (I certainly hope he is), he also seems to have perhaps more pressing priorities.

Today, the Foreign Office issued a press release, with a bold heading: “UK strengthens commitment to global development as Foreign Secretary becomes UK Governor to the World Bank”. No big deal, perhaps (though the post is normally held by a more junior minister), and possibly a sensible move, except that we quickly see where his priorities lie:

Ed Miliband to act as UK Governor to the World Bank, taking personal leadership of the UK’s engagement on development and climate finance.

International development and tackling the climate and nature crisis to remain departmental priority for the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office under Miliband…

…UK leadership at the World Bank will help drive international action on poverty, climate change and economic stability, and tackle global issues, like food insecurity and energy price shocks, helping make food and energy more affordable for people in the UK.

The Foreign Secretary also confirmed that international development and tackling the climate and nature crisis will both remain priorities for his department, the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, recognising that extreme poverty and climate change are shared global challenges that affect security and prosperity in the UK and communities around the world.

…Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said…I want to send an unambiguous signal that this Government is serious about its global leadership on development and climate….

Different job, same old record, it seems. Needless to say, it seems that the Guardian was tipped off in advance, since it had an article about this yesterday:

By taking up the World Bank seat personally, Miliband is sending a clear signal that while other politicians even now argue against net zero policies, the Foreign Office will continue to drive climate action.

There is, however, a problem, and Mr Miliband seems to be unaware of it, despite the relentless rise in global greenhouse gas emissions (in spite all those COPs, and despite the UK’s inspiring leadership). While executive directors of the World Bank, including France and 18 other shareholding countries, signed a letter last October ‌endorsing the Bank’s continued work on climate change, the largest shareholder, the United States, declined to sign. President Trump, all things being equal, will remain in office until January 2029, so there seems little chance that US climate change policy will change before then.And that’s a problem for Mr Miliband, due to the dominant influence of the USA with regard to that institution. That dominance is well-understood, (https://www.cadtm.org/Domination-of-the-United-States-on-the-World-Bank) puts it well:

From its beginnings till today, the US is the only country to have a de facto right of veto at the World Bank. With the creation of the Bank, the US had 35.07% of the voting rights; since the last modification of voting rights, they enjoy 15.51%. Since its origin in 1947 (the year the Bank went into operation), the majority required to modify the statutes was 80% (held by at least 60% of the member countries), which in fact gave the US a right of veto. The wave of newly independent countries in the South increased the number of member nations of the World Bank Group, gradually diluting the weight of the US vote. However, the US took care to preserve its right of veto: in 1966, it had only 25.50% of voting rights but this percentage was still sufficient for the purpose.

When in 1987 the situation was no longer tenable for the US, the definition of the qualified majority was modified in its favour. In fact, that year, Japan negotiated a significant increase in its voting rights with the US, placing it as the second most important country ahead of Germany and Great Britain. In order to concede this increase to their Japanese allies, the US accepted a reduction of its voting rights provided that the required majority was raised to 85%. In this manner it gave full satisfaction to Japan while maintaining its right of veto.

The reference to Japan is worthy of note. The letter that the USA declined to sign in October last year also went unsigned by executive directors representing Russia, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, while India and Japan abstained.

Mr Miliband might think that he has a great opportunity to demonstrate the UK’s “climate leadership”, but I suspect the reality is that he’s riding for a fall. UK governments rarely sit out a full five year term between elections, but even if this one does so, the next UK general election must be held no later than 15^th August 2029. Were the election to be delayed until then, there would be less than seven months between the end of Trump’s administration in the USA and the end of the current UK government’s time in office, and there is certainly no guarantee that it will win the next general election. Quite what Mr Miliband thinks he can achieve at the World Bank in the face of opposition from the USA (and other important players there) over the next two and a half years is beyond me.

Does Mr Burnham think that in sending Mr Miliband to the Foreign Office he has despatched him to a cul-de-sac, or is Mr Miliband doing Mr Burnham’s bidding there? Only time will tell. But I think I would prefer it if someone else had been appointed as Foreign Secretary – someone who thinks there is more to life and to politics than a never-ending climate crisis.