Search Climate Insights Directory

The Brazilian sustainable debt market has grown to USD 10.8 billion, with green bonds dominating at 84% of the market. Land use is a primary driver, accounting for 67% of emissions across green, sustainable, sustainability-linked, and transition labels. The forestry sector is the most significant theme, led by pulp and paper companies like Suzano and Klabin. Bioenergy and agriculture are emerging sectors, while livestock remains a challenge but shows potential through transition bonds. The document highlights a significant investment potential of USD 163 billion for green agriculture in Brazil by 2030.

The North American GSS debt market reached USD 311bn by Q1 2021, dominated by the US and primarily driven by green-labelled instruments. While the US is the largest single-country source of GSS debt, the market is heavily concentrated in agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and municipal bonds, with limited participation from the real economy's heavy-emitting sectors. Canada's market is smaller but characterized by larger average deal sizes and a strong focus on hydropower. Both nations are seeing a shift toward more ambitious climate targets and enhanced disclosure requirements, though the US lags in post-issuance reporting quality compared to Canada.

The 2021 report on the state of urban climate finance reveals a significant gap between current investments and the trillions of dollars needed for urban climate action. While global urban climate funding averaged 384 billion USD per year in 2017/2018, these flows are heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, leaving rapidly urbanizing areas in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia severely underfunded. The report emphasizes that mitigation efforts, particularly in transport and buildings, dominate current spending, while adaptation and resilience receive less than 10% of funding. To bridge this gap, the document outlines 'enabling conditions' across national, city, and climate-specific levels, urging a systemic approach to align planning, budgeting, and policy to attract both public and private investment.

The report estimates that an average of USD 384 billion was invested annually in urban climate finance during 2017-2018, a figure significantly lower than the estimated annual need of USD 4.5 to 5.4 trillion for low-emission and resilient urban infrastructure. Mitigation efforts, particularly in sustainable transport and green buildings, dominate the landscape, while adaptation finance remains severely underfunded, representing only 9% of tracked project-level data. The analysis highlights a geographic imbalance, with the majority of finance flowing to China and developed economies, while regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia remain critically underfunded. Key barriers to scaling this finance include low creditworthiness of city governments, a lack of bankable projects, and institutional restrictions on local borrowing.

The report establishes a conceptual framework for urban climate finance, emphasizing that mobilization depends on the alignment of country-specific, city-specific, and climate-specific enabling conditions. It details the five roles city governments play—consumer, provider, fundraiser, regulator, and champion—and argues that a lack of administrative capacity, fragmented authority, and limited revenue sources in developing countries create significant barriers. The document recommends integrating climate considerations into all levels of city planning (strategic, spatial, capital investment, and budgetary) and suggests using carbon pricing, land-value capture, and conditional intergovernmental transfers to close the urban financing gap.

The report alleges that BlackRock has created an "echo chamber" of influence in Brussels to weaken the EU's climate finance regulations. By operating through 23 trade associations and securing direct consultancy contracts with the European Commission, BlackRock is accused of pushing for "soft" regulation and voluntary standards, such as the EU Green Bond Standard, to avoid binding restrictions on its investment choices. The document argues that this strategy serves to protect BlackRock's significant holdings in fossil fuel companies and its business model based on financial risk management rather than climate impact.

The report warns that 11 major Eurozone banks hold over 530 billion euros in fossil fuel assets, representing 95% of their total equity. It argues that these assets are prone to becoming 'stranded assets' as the world transitions to meet the Paris Agreement, potentially triggering a financial crisis similar to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis. The authors critique 'green finance' as largely greenwashing and call for the European Central Bank (ECB) to align its monetary policy with climate goals, increase capital requirements for fossil fuel exposure, and establish a public 'bad bank' to manage the phased extinction of these assets.

The report warns that the 11 largest banks in the eurozone hold over 530 billion euros in fossil fuel assets, which represent 95% of their total equity on average. This overexposure creates a significant risk of 'stranded assets' as the world transitions to meet Paris Agreement goals. The authors argue that current 'green finance' is largely a greenwashing tool and that voluntary bank commitments are insufficient. They propose a two-step solution: first, implementing strict regulations and reforming European Central Bank (ECB) monetary policy to stop new fossil fuel funding; second, establishing a public 'fossil bank' under the ECB to buy back and gradually phase out these risky assets to protect financial stability and enable the ecological transition.

The document argues that while nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly integrated into global climate and biodiversity policies, there is a critical lack of research and reflection on their social and economic sustainability. It highlights risks such as 'green gentrification,' where market-driven NbS prioritize high-income groups and displace vulnerable populations. The authors note a significant geographic imbalance in NbS research, which is dominated by high-income countries despite the high vulnerability of Small Island Developing States and lower-income countries. Financially, NbS receive a small fraction of total climate finance, with challenges including the difficulty of comparing NbS costs to 'grey' infrastructure and a lack of private sector incentives for adaptation. Finally, the document addresses the complexities of 'scaling-up' NbS, noting that misinterpreting spatial, temporal, and institutional scales can lead to suboptimal outcomes for human-environmental systems.

The document examines the disparity in green finance between developed and developing nations, noting that while the EU and other developed markets have integrated substantial green recovery measures into their COVID-19 stimulus packages, developing countries often lack explicit green budgets and remain heavily dependent on North-South financial flows. It highlights challenges in the global South, including infrastructure deficits, governance issues, and a 'dependency syndrome' regarding international aid. The brief recommends institutional reforms to enhance capital markets, increased South-South cooperation, and globally coordinated efforts to improve the design and monitoring of green projects.

The Electrical Grids and Storage Criteria provide a framework for certifying bonds that finance the construction, upgrade, and operation of electricity transmission, distribution, and storage infrastructure. To be certified, assets must meet specific mitigation benchmarks—such as supporting renewable energy integration or operating within a decarbonising system—and satisfy a comprehensive adaptation and resilience checklist. The criteria cover a wide range of assets, from high-voltage transmission lines to battery storage facilities, and include detailed methodological notes for determining system eligibility based on grid emission factors or added generation capacity.

The report outlines a framework for Chile to establish a national green taxonomy, which would serve as a classification system to identify sustainable economic activities and prevent greenwashing. It recommends that Chile follow a three-step path: adopt existing international taxonomies (such as those from the EU, China, or Climate Bonds Initiative), adapt them to local contexts, and lead the development of new criteria for sectors lacking international benchmarks, specifically mining. The document identifies energy, transport, construction, and industry as priority sectors for mitigation, while emphasizing that adaptation and resilience criteria must be developed in parallel across all sectors. It proposes a three-level governance structure involving government ministries, technical coordinators, and industry experts, and suggests focusing initial applications on green debt instruments.

The Hong Kong green bond market in 2020 saw a record number of deals but an 18% decline in total volume to USD 2.09bn. Low-carbon buildings remained the primary theme for proceed allocations, though waste reached a record high. The market is supported by new government initiatives, including a 2050 carbon neutrality pledge and the Green and Sustainable Finance Grant Scheme. While local issuance is significant, mainland China entities continue to drive the broader green debt market arranged in Hong Kong.

The report finds that while post-issuance UoP reporting is widespread, impact reporting is less common and highly unstandardised. It highlights a positive correlation between reporting availability and the presence of external reviews, particularly post-issuance reviews. The analysis reveals that larger issuers and more mature markets generally report more frequently, though average quality scores remain relatively constant across deal sizes. The document argues for a shift toward a common global reporting framework and the use of absolute rather than relative metrics to provide a holistic view of environmental performance.

The report outlines a framework for Chile to establish a national green taxonomy, recommending a pathway of adopting and adapting international standards (such as the EU and CBI taxonomies) while leading the development of criteria for sectors unique to its economy, specifically mining. It identifies Energy, Transport, Construction, and Industry as priority sectors for mitigation and emphasizes the parallel development of adaptation and resilience criteria. The roadmap proposes a three-tier governance structure involving government ministries, financial regulators, and technical experts to ensure the taxonomy is science-based, binary, and aligned with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal.

The document outlines the development of eligibility criteria for electrical grids and storage to align bond investments with a 1.5°C warming scenario. It details the decision to adopt EU taxonomy criteria for transmission and distribution, the rationale for applying similar constraints to energy storage, and the requirements for climate resilience and adaptation.

The document argues that the innovative policy responses used to combat the COVID-19 pandemic can be repurposed to mitigate systemic climate-related risks. It details how prudential regulations, such as stress testing and capital buffers, and monetary instruments, including collateral frameworks and corporate financing facilities, can be 'greened' to support a sustainable recovery in the ASEAN region. The brief emphasizes the need for clear roadmaps and mandatory climate disclosures to manage both physical and transition risks.

The document assesses the global and regional shortfall in biodiversity finance, noting that the world failed to meet any Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020. It argues that conservation should be viewed as an investment with a financial return on investment (ROI) rather than a cost. The author explores several 'green' financial instruments—including debt-for-nature swaps, green bonds, 'blue' financing, payment for ecosystem services (PES), and biocredits—as viable options for Africa. It specifically highlights the opportunity provided by COVID-19 recovery packages to implement a 'build forward better' approach, urging African governments and the African Development Bank to lead in mobilising these resources and realigning harmful subsidies toward nature-positive outcomes.

The document examines the social, economic, and environmental challenges of urbanization in Sweden and highlights specific municipal projects focused on energy efficiency, low-carbon transport, and nature-based solutions. It emphasizes the role of cities in achieving net-zero emissions by 2045 and the use of green bonds to finance these transitions.

The Nordic GSS bond market reached a cumulative USD 88.2bn by the end of 2020, representing 5% of the global GSS volume. Green bonds dominate the market at 96% of the total, with Sweden leading in cumulative issuance. The region shows high standards of transparency, with 99% of volume benefiting from external reviews.