Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates CCUS as a primary decarbonization lever for India's steel sector, specifically targeting the emission-intensive BF-BOF route. It identifies single-point pre-combustion capture with gas conditioning as the most cost-effective technical approach, with a net CO2 abatement cost of USD 5560/tCO2. The study maps seven steel clusters in Eastern India and finds significant geological storage potential, primarily in deep saline aquifers (estimated at 62 Gt). To overcome high capital costs, the report proposes novel financing instruments like Partial Deep Discount Carbon STRIPS (PDDCS) bonds and the establishment of a Carbon Capture Finance Corporation (CCFC). It concludes that a breakeven carbon price of approximately INR 2,099 (USD 25)/tCO2 is necessary for project financial viability in a mature market.

The document argues that traditional green finance is insufficient for the Indian iron and steel sector because many necessary transitional technologies are not yet 'green' enough or are economically unviable. It identifies four core enablers for a transition finance (TF) market: sectoral roadmaps, climate finance taxonomies, credible corporate transition plans, and specialized TF instruments. To address high capex and cash flow constraints, the authors propose the Partial Deep Discount Carbon STRIPS (PDDCS) bond, which offers long-term debt (25-30 years) and allows investors to receive coupons in either cash or carbon credits generated by the project. The brief also suggests a flexible version (PDDB+C) to align with current Indian Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) regulations, which currently limit carbon trading to registered entities.

The report finds that while PDB climate ambition has generally increased since the Paris Agreement, progress is uneven. A small group of high-ambition PDBs provides the vast majority of climate finance, while many others remain in 'limited' or 'minimal' ambition clusters. The report identifies systemic gaps in capacity building—specifically a lack of long-term, institution-wide support—and recommends a shift toward multi-year, sequenced technical assistance and the development of regional TA ecosystems to mobilize the trillions in assets held by less ambitious PDBs.

The report finds that while OECD pension funds are increasing their climate target-setting and internal governance, their portfolios remain heavily exposed to expansionist fossil fuels. Progress is strongly linked to national regulatory environments, with the Netherlands, Denmark, and the UK leading. A critical lever for future impact is the governance of the asset owner–asset manager relationship, where leading funds are moving toward more active mandates, stricter stewardship oversight, and in some cases, the internalization of asset management to ensure alignment with net-zero goals.

This research paper by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) proposes a quantitative approach to tracking the quality of public climate finance. It builds upon a three-level conceptual framework—project, market, and system levels—to identify practical indicators that can reduce subjectivity in quality judgments and improve coordination among public finance providers.

The report identifies a significant gap in equity investment for clean energy in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), noting that current growth rates are insufficient for net zero goals. It proposes the use of catalytic equity—invested on sub-market terms—as a high-leverage tool to reduce risk and attract commercial investment, estimating that relatively small annual amounts of catalytic equity could help bridge a USD 215 billion annual gap.

In 2024, IDFC members reported USD 173 billion in green finance commitments, a 13% decrease from 2023. Climate finance dominated these flows, accounting for 96% (USD 167 billion) of the total, with mitigation finance at USD 140 billion and adaptation finance increasing by 64% to USD 17 billion. Biodiversity finance rose to USD 8 billion, while USD 4 billion was allocated to other environmental objectives like the circular economy.

Indonesia faces a significant funding gap to meet its 2030 climate targets, requiring approximately $19 billion annually. Between 2019 and 2023, investment in fossil fuel power plants was nearly double that of renewable energy, heavily driven by international private finance. While renewable energy investment is dominated by baseload sources like hydro and geothermal, variable RE such as solar and wind began growing in 2021. A critical challenge is the rise of captive fossil-fuel power plants used for nickel processing, which are exempt from certain coal-fired power plant bans.

The report evaluates the climate transition progress of global private financial institutions (FIs) using the Net Zero Finance Tracker (NZFT). While target adoption has expanded, the quality of these targets remains weak, particularly regarding fossil fuel phase-outs. Implementation has improved in areas like climate risk disclosure, but real-world impact is limited: financed emissions have decreased only slightly since 2019, and credit financing remains heavily skewed toward fossil fuels. Direct finance for clean and transition energy projects grew by 18% annually from 2019 to 2024, reaching nearly USD 126 billion, though this investment is concentrated in advanced economies.

The report identifies 30 international financial mechanisms for tropical forests, totaling US$ 25.9 billion in planned, issued, and disbursed funds. It highlights a significant funding gap, noting that current flows are far below the US$ 66.8 billion annually needed by 2030. The analysis reveals that while conservation is the most common focus, restoration offers higher potential for private and blended finance. The report also notes that nearly half of the mapped mechanisms are globally accessible, but access remains concentrated in Latin America, particularly Brazil and Guyana, leaving other high-potential countries underserved.

The report outlines a systematic approach to estimating bottom-up climate finance needs by extracting data from 167 NDCs. It distinguishes bottom-up needs—finance required by countries to reach national targets—from top-down needs, which are derived from predictive models for 1.5°C pathways. The methodology involves standardizing diverse data on sector classification, timeframes, and currency (converting to 2023 USD), while categorizing finance as unconditional (domestic) or conditional (international). The document acknowledges significant data gaps, noting that less than half of the reviewed NDCs provide fully costed needs, and that current bottom-up estimates are insufficient to align with a net-zero pathway.

The Carbon Rating Framework, developed by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), aims to integrate emissions performance into financial decision-making by assigning companies a rating from CR1 (lowest emissions) to CR10 (highest emissions). Phase 2 involved testing this framework on a sample of 50 companies, using a weighted average of current emission intensity (70%) and projected intensity (30%) normalized by revenue. The testing demonstrated the framework's ability to differentiate emissions across diverse sectors, though it highlighted limitations regarding the availability of projected emissions data and the volatility of revenue as a normalization metric. Future directions include integrating Scope 3 emissions, aligning with India's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), and utilizing sector-specific intensity metrics.

In 2023, climate finance to EMDEs surpassed USD 1 trillion, with 80% sourced domestically and China accounting for 64% of total flows. While mitigation finance grew to USD 979 billion, it remains far below the estimated USD 3.86 trillion annual need. Adaptation finance totaled USD 48 billion, showing significant unevenness as the top 20% of countries received over 70% of these funds. International public finance exceeded USD 159 billion, but faces potential declines due to ODA cuts, while international private finance rose to USD 49 billion. The report emphasizes that EMDEs require nearly USD 4 trillion annually through 2030 to achieve climate goals.

Global climate finance reached a record USD 1.9 trillion in 2023, driven by a 30% compound annual growth rate in private finance from 2018 to 2023. While mitigation finance dominates at 94% of total flows—primarily targeting energy systems and transport—adaptation finance decreased by 16% in 2023 to USD 65 billion. Significant regional disparities persist, with 79% of finance concentrated in East Asia and the Pacific, Western Europe, and the US and Canada. Despite growth, current investment levels remain three times lower than the most conservative estimates of global needs.

In 2024, IDFC members committed $173 billion in green finance, a 13% decrease from 2023, primarily driven by shifts in investment priorities among a few large institutions. Despite the overall decline, 14 of 23 responding members increased their commitments. Climate finance dominated at $167 billion, with mitigation ($140 billion) remaining the primary focus, while adaptation finance saw a 54% increase to $17 billion. Biodiversity finance totaled $8 billion. The report highlights the pivotal role of non-OECD institutions, which provided 72% of climate finance, and emphasizes the need to target underfunded sectors such as AFOLU, fisheries, and industry.

The report catalogs 30 operational financial mechanisms for tropical forests, totaling US$ 25.9 billion in planned, issued, and disbursed funds. It highlights a significant funding gap compared to the US$ 66.8 billion annually needed by 2030, noting that 31% of identified funds have not yet been disbursed. The analysis emphasizes that while conservation currently dominates funding, restoration offers higher potential for private and blended finance, and jurisdictional REDD+ remains the most significant instrument, representing over US$ 15.3 billion.

The report identifies 30 international financial mechanisms totaling US$ 25.9 billion intended for tropical forests. It highlights a significant funding gap compared to the US$ 66.8 billion annual requirement estimated by UNEP, noting that 31% of identified funds remain unissued or undisbursed. The analysis reveals that while conservation is the most common focus, restoration offers high potential for private and blended finance, and REDD+ jurisdictional mechanisms account for over half of the total identified financing.

The report maps 30 international financial mechanisms totaling US$ 25.9 billion aimed at tropical forests, highlighting a significant funding gap compared to the US$ 66.8 billion annual need identified by UNEP. It analyzes the roles of various actors, the prevalence of result-based payments like REDD+, and the geographic concentration of funds in Latin America, specifically Brazil and Guyana.

The Net Zero Finance Tracker (NZFT) Methodology 2025 describes a framework for assessing the Paris Agreement alignment of 1,500 global financial institutions, representing approximately USD 286 trillion in assets. The methodology employs a three-dimensional approach—Targets, Implementation, and Impact—using a mix of qualitative tiered scoring and quantitative metrics. Key updates for 2025 include expanded institutional coverage, the integration of new frameworks such as the TPT and OECD, and the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for primary data extraction from corporate reports. The document details how the NZFT tracks mitigation targets, climate risk management, and financial flows to clean energy and fossil fuels, while introducing an ownership attribution approach to link financial holdings to real-economy emissions and physical risks.

The report argues that while tracking the quantity of climate finance is established, tracking its quality remains nascent. It proposes a three-level conceptual framework—project, market, and system—to move beyond one-off project outputs toward sustained transformational change. At the project level, it emphasizes core indicators like tCO2e for mitigation and beneficiaries reached for adaptation. At the market level, it focuses on creation, scalability, and inclusiveness, highlighting private finance catalyzation and job creation. At the system level, it identifies three catalytic pathways (singular, centralized, and decentralized) to track structural shifts in paradigms, policies, and institutional arrangements. The report concludes by identifying nine key indicators as a starting point for a common reporting approach across public climate finance actors.