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; this 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 15th 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.

6 Comments

  1. I believe the USA provides the biggest financial support to the World Bank and the Trump administration has already successfully pressured it to stop its climate change nonsense:

    “The Trump administration has secured another win in its campaign to end climate-related policies and regulations on the international stage, forcing the World Bank to retire its ambitious climate financing goals. 

    The World Bank Group announced on Monday that it was retiring its goal of 45% of its funding being dedicated to climate-related projects, with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the largest emitters while propping up developing countries in need of resources to adapt to climate change.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-and-environment/4615236/world-bank-climate-financing-expire-july-pressure-trump-administration/

    Miliband doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the World Bank to “drive international action on climate change”.

    Like

  2. Doug Brodie,

    My apologies – your comment was trapped in pending, and I have only just noticed it there and set it free. WordPress doesn’t seem to like links and embedded links – I don’t know why, and it is unhelpful.

    However, I absolutely agree regarding Miliband’s prospects of getting the World Bank to do his bidding in the face of US opposition. I have used the line “Hubris, meet Nemesis” before, but it seems particularly apt here.

    Like

  3. “New UK PM Andy Burnham Has Supported a 90% Cut in Hydrocarbon Use Within 10 Years

    As Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham wanted to slash hydrocarbon use by 90% in 10 years. Now the new Energy Minister is making similar noises. Chris Morrison wonders if destroying modern society is still the plan.”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2026/07/28/new-uk-pm-andy-burnham-has-supported-a-90-cut-in-hydrocarbon-use-within-10/

    …Of course, allowing the two North Sea fields Rosebank and Jackdaw to open is little more than re-arranging the deckchairs on the Net Zero Ship of Fools. Thanks to the 2008 Climate Change Act and later amendments made by the Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, Britain is legally committed to short-order Net Zero destruction. Unless the legislation is torn up, new drilling is likely to be challenged in the courts. As 2050 looms closer, lawfare will likely stop almost all new projects where emissions are likely to arise from using hydrocarbons.

    The small Burnham North Sea relaxation, along with the removal of 5% VAT on electricity bills, is an obvious electoral ploy to disguise the fact that Britain now has some of the highest energy costs in the industrial world – and they are likely to get a great deal higher in the future.

    Meanwhile, the woman who has taken charge of Britain’s laughably named energy security department is testament to the growing power of dark green money. Miatta Fahnbulleh has cut her teeth in two hard-Left green think tanks, both of which have relied on funding from billionaire donors. Over recent years, billions of pounds of this dark green money have flowed from rich individuals pushing a Net Zero agenda via ‘charitable’ tax-advantageous payments. Most of the foundation vehicles seem to be driven by virtuous liberal guilt or a desire to promote a trillion-dollar subsidy-driven Net Zero world. Sometimes a toxic mixture of both….

    …The elevation of Ms Fahnbulleh to high ministerial office is a great coup for this world of green cash – jackpot might not be an exaggeration to describe her elevation to the powerful energy role. From 2017 to 2023, she was the chief executive of the New Economics Foundation (NEF). During that period, she frequently argued for measures that would fundamentally reshape everyday life. A particular bugbear seems to have been airline travel, where the NEF argued for frequent flyer taxes reaching into hundreds of pounds. In addition to redirected local taxes from Manchester City Council and the Greater London Authority, the NEF has received funds from many Left-wing money trees including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Climate Works Foundation, Oak Foundation and the European Climate Foundation (ECF)….

    …In the recent past, Fahnbulleh has argued that Left-wing governments must treat the climate ‘crisis’ with the urgency of wartime mobilisation and prioritise systemic change over short-term considerations. In a 2020 article for Foreign Affairs, Fahnbulleh outlined her vision for a global green new deal. She called for a “massive mobilisation of resources to decarbonise” economies and advocated slashing carbon emissions to Net Zero within 10 to 15 years….

    Liked by 1 person

  4. “Ed Miliband Seeks a Global Economic Suicide Pact

    Ed Miliband has demoted himself to the Foreign Office to push green ideology through global institutions – just as the rest of the world is starting to see through the nonsense, says Ben Pile.”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2026/07/29/ed-miliband-seeks-a-global-economic-suicide-pact/

    …This week, Miliband has vowed to “take personal leadership of the UK’s work on development and climate” using the UK’s position at the World Bank to “ensure the UK plays a leading role” in sustaining both climate and development at the centre of foreign policy. But what if the world has other ideas?…

    …The only noteworthy thing about the story is that the role of UK governor to the World Bank typically falls to a junior minister, not to the Secretary of State. Miliband, who believes that abolishing cheap and plentiful energy is the key to dismantling the forces of inequality and to building in their place the institutions of global social democracy, has demoted himself in order to better push climate through global political architecture….

    …All of this is to say that it is long past the point at which we could describe the British Government, the World Bank and the ‘development’ sector as forces for good in the world. If there is a connection between the rise of environmentalism and the stalling of progress on poverty statistics since the end of the Cold War, then we can say categorically that they are forces for bad. Miliband – who is likely to strain Britain’s relations with the US – seems set to use his position to make a song and dance about climate change just as the rest of the world wakes up to the nonsense, and is accordingly likely to set Britain up as a toxic pariah on the global stage.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Behind a paywall, unfortunately:

    “Britain’s Collision Course With Trump’s Energy Counter-Revolution

    A Net Zero zealot meets an energy realist superpower. What could go wrong?”

    https://www.climateskeptic.org/p/britains-collision-course-with-trumps

    …Since Donald Trump’s return to office, his administration has waged a sustained campaign to wrest the great multilateral institutions back from the ‘globalist’ climate agenda that captured them over the past two decades. Washington threatened outright withdrawal from the International Energy Agency unless it abandoned the Net Zero fantasies embedded in its 2021 “Net Zero by 2050” roadmap; the IEA duly reintroduced its Current Policies Scenario, quietly shelving two decades of advocacy dressed up as forecasting.

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has led the same campaign more bluntly still with respect to the Bretton Woods twin institutions (the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund). The Treasury Secretary told the IMF and World Bank that fossil fuels remain critical for developing nations and, reading between the lines, that the eco-zealots’ stranglehold on global finance had to end. Last October, Bessent told the World Bank directly to refocus on affordable energy, poverty reduction and country self-reliance; by this April he was warning the IMF that “mission creep” into climate, gender and social issues had left it disconnected from its core mandate….

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I’m not sure whether backbench Labour MPs or the Guardian are the bigger threat:

    “Burnham risks first revolt as PM over apparent support for North Sea drilling

    Labour MPs fear No 10 team lack up-to-date energy insight and don’t fully recognise voters’ climate concerns”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/31/andy-burnham-risks-labour-revolt-north-sea-drilling-rosebank-jackdaw-climate

    Andy Burnham was told he could face the first revolt of his premiership as Labour MPs and climate experts condemned his apparent support for renewed drilling for oil and gas….

    …Speaking at a community centre in Sheffield on Friday, Burnham repeated he would be “pragmatic” about oil and gas and that decisions on new drilling would be made “in due course”. But he added: “The question isn’t whether Britain will still be using oil and gas, the question is where does it come from.”

    But many Labour MPs are increasingly worried about how support for expanded drilling will play with an electorate alarmed by the worst drought since 1976, soaring temperatures, wildfires, and climate-related food inflation and potential supply shortages.

    They worry about losing more voters to the Greens: Zack Polanski’s party has stressed its opposition to further new licences for the North Sea, including the Jackdaw gasfield in the North Sea and the Rosebank oilfield, west of Shetland. A decision to go ahead with the projects could trigger a new surge in defectors from Labour.

    Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, urged ministers to “keep carbon in the ground”, and watch the recent national emergency climate briefing. She added: “We’re seeing ice caps melting, seas warming up, hotter and hotter summers. This summer has been a warning that we have to go towards a sustainable future fast.”

    Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, said there was “no legitimate reason” to press ahead with Jackdaw because it would make only a negligible difference to energy prices while sending the wrong signal internationally as Europe experienced record heat.

    Lewis said approving the field would show Burnham was “not looking at the evidence” and that Labour risked adding “the stain of the climate crisis” to the party’s record, alongside Gaza.

    Chris Murray, the Labour MP for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, said the UK must stay the course on decarbonisation. “Britain was the first country to industrialise and we have a duty to lead the world on net zero. We must be wary of the self-interest from which oil and gas companies are arguing, while the future of the planet is at stake.”….

    …Concerns over the negative impact of allowing new North Sea drilling extend across the Labour party, transcending factions and “tribes”. The Guardian has contacted or been told of concerned MPs including ministers and junior members of government, longstanding senior backbench MPs and committee figures and new MPs from the 2024 general election intake….

    How did the Labour Party come to be taken over by a cult?

    Like

Leave a comment