The “wall of capital” that was supposedly coming to finance the global energy transition has proven to be more of a dam, holding back most of the cash that was promised.
More than $150 trillion of private-sector assets have been committed over the past 18 months to zeroing out finance sector emissions via the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). However, just a fraction of that money has been used to address the growing climate crisis.
To reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and limit global warming to 1.5C, investment in renewable energy sources needs to surpass finance flows to fossil fuels by a factor of four over the next decade, according to research from BloombergNEF. Last year at COP26 in Scotland (which was effectively a launch party for GFANZ), then-UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak hailed the “historic wall of capital for the net-zero transition.”
But while the assets of GFANZ members are well above the estimated $100 trillion needed for the transition, there are no guarantees the funds will be deployed in climate-friendly ways—either today or in the future.
There are a few reasons why.
- First, the assets are tied up in existing investments so there will have to be a process of portfolio rebalancing to shift funds.
- Second, while bankers and policymakers talk up so-called concessional or blended-finance structures, progress has been slow. Among the proposals have been deals in which public-sector entities provide guarantees or remove some risk associated with allowing private-sector investors to devote large sums to emerging economies where funds are needed most.
- Third, financial sector investors say there simply aren’t enough projects suitable for investment.
This third claim was assailed in a new report published by the two leaders of the United Nations’ Race to Zero campaign. The report, issued for “finance day” at COP27, said developers of clean energy and climate-friendly projects—especially those in the emerging world—are ready to go. But they are “struggling to secure investments from potential financiers,” while would-be investors “criticize a paucity of investable projects.”