ADB’s Energy Policy is rushing toward the wrong side of history

by Jason Weiner, Executive & Legal Director, Bank Climate Advocates & Nazareth Del Pilar, Just Transitions Advocacy Officer, NGO Forum on ADB

Asian Development Bank (ADB) calls itself the “climate bank of Asia and the Pacific.” But with its proposed changes to its Energy Policy, it risks betraying that title. At a time when climate change is hitting the region’s most vulnerable the hardest, ADB appears to be weakening its climate commitments—quietly, and dangerously.

As one of the region’s largest infrastructure financiers, ADB holds immense influence over whether Asia and the Pacific meet or miss global climate targets. What it funds—or fails to—will shape the energy future of millions.

In 2021, ADB and its directors committed to revisiting its Energy Policy by 2025 to assess alignment with a just, low-carbon transition. That review, however, is now being rushed—with limited transparency, minimal public input, entirely missing legally required environmental assessment, and no analysis or adjustments to reflect ADB’s legal obligations under evolving international climate law.

Since that commitment, climate science and international law have advanced significantly. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Energy Agency (IEA) now confirm that new fossil gas projects, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), are incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Recent advisory opinions from three international bodies—the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Court of Justice—affirm that public banks like ADB, and their member state shareholders when acting at them, must avoid actions and policies contributing to climate harm, including fossil fuel financing.

ADB’s current Energy Policy relied on a 2°C interpretation of Paris alignment. Five years later, that premise is now scientifically and legally obsolete. ADB must re-evaluate its policy in line with the prevailing 1.5°C standard.

So what is ADB actually doing with this long-promised review? Is it reassessing its and its member states’ international legal obligations on climate change? Is it analyzing whether continued financing of LNG and fossil gas is even legally permissible under current climate science and law?

Unfortunately, NO.

Nor is ADB complying with its own commitments—to determine whether its financing accelerates the development of  a sustainable energy system that supports the low-carbon transition in Asia and the Pacific or aligns with the Paris Agreement, which now clearly requires a 1.5°C threshold.

Again, the answer is NO.

Instead, the Bank is doing the opposite, it is -

1. Skipping any reassessment of its legal climate obligations;

2. Rebranding major policy shifts as “minor amendments”;

3. Violating public participation norms by allowing only 30 days for comment and withholding the full draft text with contemplated amendments;

4. Rushing Board adoption by moving the anticipated approval date up by 3-5 months;

5. Proceeding without any environmental assessments, including Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) that international law requires for the  amendments allowing and setting the framework for ADB to invest in specific high environmental risk energy infrastructure.

This rushed process is more than a technicality. It’s a legal and moral failure.

One of the most concerning proposed changes is ADB’s plan to lift its current ban on financing nuclear energy—which would be a major new approval with serious environmental, safety, and equity implications. Yet ADB has conducted no SEA or equivalent analysis to evaluate these risks, and none has been made publicly available.

This omission violates ADB’s and its members states’ key obligations under international law, including those related to transboundary harm prevention, environmental impact assessment, human rights, and public participation. For instance, no SEA analysis has been released on the risks of nuclear energy, the safeguards required to mitigate them, or how nuclear compares to renewables in terms of cost, equity, and alignment with a just transition.

Worse, ADB is expanding its Energy Transition Mechanism—originally meant to retire coal—to include oil and gas, risking a backdoor refinancing channel for fossil fuel firms.

The review also seems focused on promoting controversial technologies—like co-firing and other “low-carbon” or “emission-reduction” schemes—rather than achieving real climate alignment. These measures delay real solutions, divert public resources away from proven renewables, and could lock countries into stranded assets, debt, and decades of emissions.

At a time when science calls for urgent, uncompromising action, ADB’s current direction risks pushing Asia and the Pacific further off the 1.5°C pathway.

In sum, this review suffers from both procedural and substantive failures—falling short of ADB’s and its member states’ legal obligations on climate change, harm prevention, environmental assessment, and public consultation.

Given these failures, ADB must suspend approval of any Energy Policy amendments until it conducts a full, transparent, and legally compliant review. Anything less falls short of international law—and the communities it claims to serve.