Opinion: The Media Must Make the War in Ukraine About the Climate Crisis

In the last few weeks, the war in Ukraine has stolen most of the world’s media attention. So much so that climate advocates complain that news of the war now overshadows the much more important UN climate report, released on Monday the 28th of February which got very little media attention.

But it would be wrong to disconnect those two issues as they’re very much connected.

Media outlets must understand and must start to report how these two issues are very much interlinked.

Linking the war in Ukraine and the climate crisis

First, as I have previously argued; conflicts and wars do nothing but slow down and halt action on climate change. In the shadow of the old USSR, the economy of Ukraine has been hugely reliant on fossil fuels. But a reason for Putin’s invasion is that the country is moving further away from Russia and closer towards the European Union (EU) and western values.

This means they have in recent years started to take action on climate change with several new low-carbon projects alongside its 15 nuclear reactors, and, of course, the official line in the country is that the climate crisis is a clear and present danger.

Ukraine has in the wake of the invasion demanded immediate membership of the EU, with many member states keen on speeding up the process. Were this to happen, they would need to sign on to the EU’s ambitious agenda to tackle climate change. And perhaps most important; recognize that what is fuelling the climate crisis is also fuelling and funding the war in Ukraine: fossil fuels.

The topic of weaning ourselves off Russian oil and gas in the wake of the invasion has become front and centre in newsrooms around the world. But, unfortunately, news outlets are not linking this to the climate crisis.

Many climate advocates would undoubtedly welcome the sidelining of the Russian oil and gas industry, but they would rightly argue that fossil fuels are not only fuelling this war but also the prime cause of the climate crisis. News outlets should lead a campaign not only to speed up efforts to ease our reliance on fossil fuels to deal both with the current war in Ukraine and to take action on climate change.

By Anders Lorenzen. This story originally appeared in A Greener Life, a Greener World and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

Opinion: The Media Must Make the War in Ukraine About the Climate Crisis

In the last few weeks, the war in Ukraine has stolen most of the world’s media attention. So much so that climate advocates complain that news of the war now overshadows the much more important UN climate report, released on Monday the 28th of February which got very little media attention.

But it would be wrong to disconnect those two issues as they’re very much connected.

Media outlets must understand and must start to report how these two issues are very much interlinked.

Linking the war in Ukraine and the climate crisis

First, as I have previously argued; conflicts and wars do nothing but slow down and halt action on climate change. In the shadow of the old USSR, the economy of Ukraine has been hugely reliant on fossil fuels. But a reason for Putin’s invasion is that the country is moving further away from Russia and closer towards the European Union (EU) and western values.

This means they have in recent years started to take action on climate change with several new low-carbon projects alongside its 15 nuclear reactors, and, of course, the official line in the country is that the climate crisis is a clear and present danger.

Ukraine has in the wake of the invasion demanded immediate membership of the EU, with many member states keen on speeding up the process. Were this to happen, they would need to sign on to the EU’s ambitious agenda to tackle climate change. And perhaps most important; recognize that what is fuelling the climate crisis is also fuelling and funding the war in Ukraine: fossil fuels.

The topic of weaning ourselves off Russian oil and gas in the wake of the invasion has become front and centre in newsrooms around the world. But, unfortunately, news outlets are not linking this to the climate crisis.

Many climate advocates would undoubtedly welcome the sidelining of the Russian oil and gas industry, but they would rightly argue that fossil fuels are not only fuelling this war but also the prime cause of the climate crisis. News outlets should lead a campaign not only to speed up efforts to ease our reliance on fossil fuels to deal both with the current war in Ukraine and to take action on climate change.

By Anders Lorenzen. This story originally appeared in A Greener Life, a Greener World and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

Boats That Eat Trash

A trash-eating boat could clean up the world’s rivers.

A Dutch foundation devoted to fighting plastic pollution in the world’s oceans has unveiled a new device designed to stop it from reaching the sea in the first place: by collecting and cleaning plastic waste from major rivers. The Ocean Cleanup Foundation, a non-governmental organization, best known for its attempts to collect and clean plastic from the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” says it has been testing a system based on similar principles — a floating barrier to collect plastic passively — for use in rivers.

“To solve the plastic pollution problem, we need to do two things: Clean up what’s already in the oceans and prevent more plastic from reaching the ocean in the first place,” says 25-year-old founder Boyan Slat (pictured above). The system has already been tested on rivers in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Malaysia, with two more planned for Vietnam’s Mekong Delta and the Dominican Republic. According to Slat, 1 percent of rivers are responsible for 80 percent of the pollution in the world’s seas. “That makes finding a solution to the problem of plastic pollution emanating from rivers quite achievable,” he says. The venture has attracted $1 million in funding from the Benioff Ocean Initiative, and the ocean trash will be transformed into quality, sustainable products, that will be sold to fund the project.

Boats That Eat Trash

A trash-eating boat could clean up the world’s rivers.

A Dutch foundation devoted to fighting plastic pollution in the world’s oceans has unveiled a new device designed to stop it from reaching the sea in the first place: by collecting and cleaning plastic waste from major rivers. The Ocean Cleanup Foundation, a non-governmental organization, best known for its attempts to collect and clean plastic from the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” says it has been testing a system based on similar principles — a floating barrier to collect plastic passively — for use in rivers.

“To solve the plastic pollution problem, we need to do two things: Clean up what’s already in the oceans and prevent more plastic from reaching the ocean in the first place,” says 25-year-old founder Boyan Slat (pictured above). The system has already been tested on rivers in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Malaysia, with two more planned for Vietnam’s Mekong Delta and the Dominican Republic. According to Slat, 1 percent of rivers are responsible for 80 percent of the pollution in the world’s seas. “That makes finding a solution to the problem of plastic pollution emanating from rivers quite achievable,” he says. The venture has attracted $1 million in funding from the Benioff Ocean Initiative, and the ocean trash will be transformed into quality, sustainable products, that will be sold to fund the project.

Speed and Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now

In 2006, I hosted a dinner after a screening of An Inconvenient Truth, former vice president Al Gore’s seminal documentary on the climate crisis. 

We went around the table for everyone’s reaction to the film’s urgent message. When it came to my 15-year-old daughter, Mary, she declared with her typical candor: “I’m scared, and I’m angry.” Then she added, “Dad, your generation created this problem. You better fix it.”

The conversation stopped cold. All eyes turned to me. I didn’t know what to say.

As a venture capitalist, my job is to find big opportunities, target big challenges, and invest in big solutions. I am best known for backing companies like Google and Amazon early on. But the environmental crisis dwarfed any challenge I’d ever seen. Eugene Kleiner, the late cofounder of Kleiner Perkins, the Silicon Valley firm I’ve been with for 40 years, left behind a set of 12 laws that have stood the test of time. The first goes as follows: No matter how groundbreaking a new technology may seem, make sure customers actually want it. But this problem led me to invoke a lesser-known Kleiner law: There is a time when panic is the appropriate response.

That time had come. We could no longer afford to underestimate our climate emergency. To avert irreversible, catastrophic consequences, we needed to act urgently and decisively. For me, that evening changed everything.

My partners and I made climate a top priority. We got serious about investing in clean and sustainable technologies — or “cleantech,” as they’re known in Silicon Valley. We even brought in Al Gore as the firm’s newest partner. But despite Al’s excellent company, my journey into the world of zero-emissions investing was pretty lonely at first. After the iPhone debuted in 2007, Steve Jobs invited us to launch our iFund for mobile apps from Apple’s headquarters. We were hearing great pitches from mobile app startups; I could see opportunities left and right. 

So why commit a chunk of capital to the uncharted territory of solar panels, electric car batteries, and meatless proteins? Because it seemed like the right thing to do, for the firm and for the planet. I thought the cleantech market was a monster in the making. I believed we could do well by doing good. 

We pursued mobile apps and climate ventures at the same time, despite doubters on both fronts. Our mobile app investments gave us a burst of quick wins. Our climate investments were slower out of the gate, and many of them failed. It’s hard to build a durable company under any circumstances, and doubly hard to build one to take on the climate crisis.

Kleiner Perkins got beaten up in the press. But with patience and persistence, we stood by our founders. By 2019, our surviving cleantech investments began to hit one home run after the next. Our $1 billion in green venture investments is now worth $3 billion. But we have no time for a victory lap. As the years roll by, the climate clock keeps ticking. Atmospheric carbon already exceeds the upper limit for climate stability. At our current pace, we will blow past 1.5 degrees Celsius (or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over the Earth’s pre-industrial mean temperatures — the threshold, scientists say, for severe planetary damage. The effects of runaway global warming are already plain to see: devastating hurricanes, biblical flooding, uncontrollable wildfires, killer heat waves, and extreme droughts.

I must warn you up front: We’re not cutting our emissions fast enough to outrun the damage on our doorstep. I said this in 2007, and I say it today: What we’re doing is not nearly enough. Unless we course correct with urgent speed and at massive scale, we’ll be staring at a doomsday scenario. The melting polar ice caps will drown coastal cities. Failed crops will lead to widespread famine. By midcentury, a billion souls worldwide could be climate refugees.

Fortunately, we have a powerful ally in this fight: innovation. Over the past 15 years, prices for solar and wind power have plunged 90%. Clean energy sources are growing faster than anyone expected. Batteries are expanding the range of electrified vehicles at an ever-lower cost. Greater energy efficiency has sharply reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

While a good many solutions are in hand, their deployment is nowhere near where it needs to be. We’ll need massive investment and robust policy to make these innovations more affordable. We need to scale the ones we have — immediately — and invent the ones we still need. In short, we need both the now and the new.

So where’s the plan for getting the job done? Frankly, that’s what’s been missing: an actionable plan. Sure, there are lots of ways on paper to get to net-zero carbon emissions, the point where we add no more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than we can remove. But lists of goals are not plans. A long menu of options, however excellent they might be, is not a plan. Anger and despair aren’t plans; neither are hopes and dreams.

A plan is only as good as its implementation. To achieve this monumental mission, we’ll need to hold ourselves accountable every step of the way. That’s the great lesson I learned from my mentor, Andy Grove, the legendary CEO of Intel. It’s a mantra I’ve seen proven over and again: Ideas are easy. Execution is everything.

To execute a plan, we need the right tools. In my previous book, Measure What Matters, I outlined a simple but powerful goal-setting protocol that Andy Grove invented at Intel. Known as OKRs, or Objectives and Key Results, they guide organizations to focus on a few essential targets, to align at every level, to stretch for ambitious results, and to track their progress as they go — to measure what matters.

Now I’m proposing we apply OKRs to solve the climate crisis, the greatest challenge of our lifetimes. But before going all in (and this is an all-or-nothing proposition), we must answer three basic questions.

Do we have enough time? We hope so, but we’re fast running out of it.

Do we have much margin for error? No, we don’t. Not anymore.

Do we have enough money? Not yet. Investors and governments are stepping up. But we’ll need a lot more funding, from both public and private sectors, to develop and scale technologies for a clean economy. Most of all, we’ll need to divert the trillions spent on dirty energy over to clean energy options and use that energy more efficiently.

To put our plan into action, we need all hands on deck. Above all, we’ll need to execute our plan with unprecedented speed and unprecedented scale. That’s what matters most.

I’m not here to prod consumers to change their behavior. Individual actions are both needed and expected, but they won’t be nearly enough to reach this huge goal. Only concerted, collective, global action can get us past the finish line in time.

I might seem an unlikely advocate for this call to action. I’m an American, a citizen of the biggest historic polluter on Earth. I am an affluent white man, born in St. Louis, Missouri, from a generation whose negligence helped create this problem in the first place.

In my 15 years on this path, I’ve collected my share of scar tissue. Cleantech ventures demand more money, more guts, more time, and more perseverance than just about anything else. Their horizons stretch longer than most investors can stomach. The washouts are acutely painful. But the success stories — however few and far between — are worth all the setbacks and then some. These companies are more than turning a profit. They are helping to heal the Earth.

Entrepreneurs are those hardy individuals who do more with less than anyone thinks possible — and do it faster than anyone thinks possible. Today, bold risk-takers are innovating like mad as they rewrite the rules to avert a climate apocalypse. We need to bottle their entrepreneurial energy and distribute it as widely as we can to governments, companies, and communities worldwide.

A plan is not a guarantee. A timely transition to a net-zero future is no sure thing. But though I may be less optimistic than some, consider me hopeful — and impatient. With the right tools and technology, with precision-honed policies, and most of all with science on our side, we still have a fighting chance. But the time is now.

Speed and Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now

In 2006, I hosted a dinner after a screening of An Inconvenient Truth, former vice president Al Gore’s seminal documentary on the climate crisis. 

We went around the table for everyone’s reaction to the film’s urgent message. When it came to my 15-year-old daughter, Mary, she declared with her typical candor: “I’m scared, and I’m angry.” Then she added, “Dad, your generation created this problem. You better fix it.”

The conversation stopped cold. All eyes turned to me. I didn’t know what to say.

As a venture capitalist, my job is to find big opportunities, target big challenges, and invest in big solutions. I am best known for backing companies like Google and Amazon early on. But the environmental crisis dwarfed any challenge I’d ever seen. Eugene Kleiner, the late cofounder of Kleiner Perkins, the Silicon Valley firm I’ve been with for 40 years, left behind a set of 12 laws that have stood the test of time. The first goes as follows: No matter how groundbreaking a new technology may seem, make sure customers actually want it. But this problem led me to invoke a lesser-known Kleiner law: There is a time when panic is the appropriate response.

That time had come. We could no longer afford to underestimate our climate emergency. To avert irreversible, catastrophic consequences, we needed to act urgently and decisively. For me, that evening changed everything.

My partners and I made climate a top priority. We got serious about investing in clean and sustainable technologies — or “cleantech,” as they’re known in Silicon Valley. We even brought in Al Gore as the firm’s newest partner. But despite Al’s excellent company, my journey into the world of zero-emissions investing was pretty lonely at first. After the iPhone debuted in 2007, Steve Jobs invited us to launch our iFund for mobile apps from Apple’s headquarters. We were hearing great pitches from mobile app startups; I could see opportunities left and right. 

So why commit a chunk of capital to the uncharted territory of solar panels, electric car batteries, and meatless proteins? Because it seemed like the right thing to do, for the firm and for the planet. I thought the cleantech market was a monster in the making. I believed we could do well by doing good. 

We pursued mobile apps and climate ventures at the same time, despite doubters on both fronts. Our mobile app investments gave us a burst of quick wins. Our climate investments were slower out of the gate, and many of them failed. It’s hard to build a durable company under any circumstances, and doubly hard to build one to take on the climate crisis.

Kleiner Perkins got beaten up in the press. But with patience and persistence, we stood by our founders. By 2019, our surviving cleantech investments began to hit one home run after the next. Our $1 billion in green venture investments is now worth $3 billion. But we have no time for a victory lap. As the years roll by, the climate clock keeps ticking. Atmospheric carbon already exceeds the upper limit for climate stability. At our current pace, we will blow past 1.5 degrees Celsius (or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over the Earth’s pre-industrial mean temperatures — the threshold, scientists say, for severe planetary damage. The effects of runaway global warming are already plain to see: devastating hurricanes, biblical flooding, uncontrollable wildfires, killer heat waves, and extreme droughts.

I must warn you up front: We’re not cutting our emissions fast enough to outrun the damage on our doorstep. I said this in 2007, and I say it today: What we’re doing is not nearly enough. Unless we course correct with urgent speed and at massive scale, we’ll be staring at a doomsday scenario. The melting polar ice caps will drown coastal cities. Failed crops will lead to widespread famine. By midcentury, a billion souls worldwide could be climate refugees.

Fortunately, we have a powerful ally in this fight: innovation. Over the past 15 years, prices for solar and wind power have plunged 90%. Clean energy sources are growing faster than anyone expected. Batteries are expanding the range of electrified vehicles at an ever-lower cost. Greater energy efficiency has sharply reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

While a good many solutions are in hand, their deployment is nowhere near where it needs to be. We’ll need massive investment and robust policy to make these innovations more affordable. We need to scale the ones we have — immediately — and invent the ones we still need. In short, we need both the now and the new.

So where’s the plan for getting the job done? Frankly, that’s what’s been missing: an actionable plan. Sure, there are lots of ways on paper to get to net-zero carbon emissions, the point where we add no more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than we can remove. But lists of goals are not plans. A long menu of options, however excellent they might be, is not a plan. Anger and despair aren’t plans; neither are hopes and dreams.

A plan is only as good as its implementation. To achieve this monumental mission, we’ll need to hold ourselves accountable every step of the way. That’s the great lesson I learned from my mentor, Andy Grove, the legendary CEO of Intel. It’s a mantra I’ve seen proven over and again: Ideas are easy. Execution is everything.

To execute a plan, we need the right tools. In my previous book, Measure What Matters, I outlined a simple but powerful goal-setting protocol that Andy Grove invented at Intel. Known as OKRs, or Objectives and Key Results, they guide organizations to focus on a few essential targets, to align at every level, to stretch for ambitious results, and to track their progress as they go — to measure what matters.

Now I’m proposing we apply OKRs to solve the climate crisis, the greatest challenge of our lifetimes. But before going all in (and this is an all-or-nothing proposition), we must answer three basic questions.

Do we have enough time? We hope so, but we’re fast running out of it.

Do we have much margin for error? No, we don’t. Not anymore.

Do we have enough money? Not yet. Investors and governments are stepping up. But we’ll need a lot more funding, from both public and private sectors, to develop and scale technologies for a clean economy. Most of all, we’ll need to divert the trillions spent on dirty energy over to clean energy options and use that energy more efficiently.

To put our plan into action, we need all hands on deck. Above all, we’ll need to execute our plan with unprecedented speed and unprecedented scale. That’s what matters most.

I’m not here to prod consumers to change their behavior. Individual actions are both needed and expected, but they won’t be nearly enough to reach this huge goal. Only concerted, collective, global action can get us past the finish line in time.

I might seem an unlikely advocate for this call to action. I’m an American, a citizen of the biggest historic polluter on Earth. I am an affluent white man, born in St. Louis, Missouri, from a generation whose negligence helped create this problem in the first place.

In my 15 years on this path, I’ve collected my share of scar tissue. Cleantech ventures demand more money, more guts, more time, and more perseverance than just about anything else. Their horizons stretch longer than most investors can stomach. The washouts are acutely painful. But the success stories — however few and far between — are worth all the setbacks and then some. These companies are more than turning a profit. They are helping to heal the Earth.

Entrepreneurs are those hardy individuals who do more with less than anyone thinks possible — and do it faster than anyone thinks possible. Today, bold risk-takers are innovating like mad as they rewrite the rules to avert a climate apocalypse. We need to bottle their entrepreneurial energy and distribute it as widely as we can to governments, companies, and communities worldwide.

A plan is not a guarantee. A timely transition to a net-zero future is no sure thing. But though I may be less optimistic than some, consider me hopeful — and impatient. With the right tools and technology, with precision-honed policies, and most of all with science on our side, we still have a fighting chance. But the time is now.

The Ultra Runner Bringing Attention to the Global Water Crisis

A swimming pool prank gone wrong would prove to be an accident that changed Mina Guli’s life. she hurt her back so badly that doctors told me she’d never run again. challenged to create a stunt that would capture the world’s attention around the global water crisis, her global, ultra-running campaign for water was born.

“I knew that this was what I was going to do for the rest of my life. That I was going to dedicate my life to solving our water crisis. At that point I knew that I would do whatever it takes to make that happen. I don’t want this future for the next generation,“ says Mina Guli.

Guli is a global leader, entrepreneur, water advocate, and ultra runner, dedicated to raising awareness around the global water crisis. Though she wasn’t a runner to begin with, after a life-changing accident dictated she might never run again, Mina decided to prove her doctors wrong. She created an opportunity to push herself beyond what she thought possible to highlight a bigger cause — water scarcity. In 2016, to bring attention to the global water crisis, Mina ran 40 marathons across 7 deserts on 7 continents in 7 weeks. Along the way, she interviewed locals and water experts. Her goal was to tell the stories of people affected by the crisis and those working to solve it. Another running awareness project was the #RunningDry movement — 100 marathons in 100 days. And another recently completed run was the 6 River Run, along the banks of 6 of the world’s greatest rivers, across 6 continents, in 6 weeks — inspired by the UN’s 6th Sustainable Development Goal — Clean Water & Sanitation.

“It’s so weird for me to be in this situation where running has become what I do,” she says. “I did it because we needed to have a way to create a hook for people to pay attention to water. I wanted to show that we should go beyond our comfort zones to do things that are meaningful. I wanted to show that every one of us is capable of things that we have never dreamt of. I want to show that you don’t have to be anyone to be someone.” Mina stresses that water is one of the biggest risks facing society today, and that the ramifications of the global water crisis should be a great cause for concern. By 2030 there’s forecast to be a 40% gap between the amount of water we need and the amount of water available. Motivated by the perceived inaction she sees around her, Mina has dedicated her life to this problem. Her non-profit, Thirst, raises awareness of the water crisis among the next generation. 

“I don’t want the next generation to grow up and have their future limited by their ability to access water, they should only be limited by their ability to dream the dreams that they want to dream.”

The Ultra Runner Bringing Attention to the Global Water Crisis

A swimming pool prank gone wrong would prove to be an accident that changed Mina Guli’s life. she hurt her back so badly that doctors told me she’d never run again. challenged to create a stunt that would capture the world’s attention around the global water crisis, her global, ultra-running campaign for water was born.

“I knew that this was what I was going to do for the rest of my life. That I was going to dedicate my life to solving our water crisis. At that point I knew that I would do whatever it takes to make that happen. I don’t want this future for the next generation,“ says Mina Guli.

Guli is a global leader, entrepreneur, water advocate, and ultra runner, dedicated to raising awareness around the global water crisis. Though she wasn’t a runner to begin with, after a life-changing accident dictated she might never run again, Mina decided to prove her doctors wrong. She created an opportunity to push herself beyond what she thought possible to highlight a bigger cause — water scarcity. In 2016, to bring attention to the global water crisis, Mina ran 40 marathons across 7 deserts on 7 continents in 7 weeks. Along the way, she interviewed locals and water experts. Her goal was to tell the stories of people affected by the crisis and those working to solve it. Another running awareness project was the #RunningDry movement — 100 marathons in 100 days. And another recently completed run was the 6 River Run, along the banks of 6 of the world’s greatest rivers, across 6 continents, in 6 weeks — inspired by the UN’s 6th Sustainable Development Goal — Clean Water & Sanitation.

“It’s so weird for me to be in this situation where running has become what I do,” she says. “I did it because we needed to have a way to create a hook for people to pay attention to water. I wanted to show that we should go beyond our comfort zones to do things that are meaningful. I wanted to show that every one of us is capable of things that we have never dreamt of. I want to show that you don’t have to be anyone to be someone.” Mina stresses that water is one of the biggest risks facing society today, and that the ramifications of the global water crisis should be a great cause for concern. By 2030 there’s forecast to be a 40% gap between the amount of water we need and the amount of water available. Motivated by the perceived inaction she sees around her, Mina has dedicated her life to this problem. Her non-profit, Thirst, raises awareness of the water crisis among the next generation. 

“I don’t want the next generation to grow up and have their future limited by their ability to access water, they should only be limited by their ability to dream the dreams that they want to dream.”

Using Capital Markets to Fund Sustainable Infrastructure

To finance the low-carbon energy transition to adapt to climate change risks, the International Energy Agency and other global watchdogs project that massive amounts of capital will be required. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, formed pre-COP26, estimates that $125 trillion will be needed to close the 1.5- degree scenario gap to the year 2050, also known as net zero. Specifically, from 2021 to 2025, $2.5 trillion is needed annually and $4.5 trillion from 2026 to 2050, over four times more than that of today. [i]

At the COP26, the Glasgow Alliance, financiers with assets of $130 trillion under their purview, plan to transition their portfolios to net zero by 2050, an enormous undertaking.[ii] Some large players have admitted they are not sure how to get there. That’s the honest truth. In their roadmap scenario of the opportunity set in climate-related and sustainability financing the idea of blended finance is posed for infrastructure projects that are typically financed by the public sector; blended finance, they suggest uses public monies to leverage private sector capital and is highly suited to developing country needs where the risk profile is higher. In terms of infrastructure funds, the Alliance estimates $972 billion is the amount needed or potential they could support to reach net zero goals, much of it focused on electricity infrastructure.[iii] Developing countries still need all other forms of infrastructure for water, waste, transportation and the like. Many of the net-zero roadmaps are more geared to industry sectors touching the low-carbon energy space. 

Off the sidelines

The outsized amounts of capital requirements being put forth begs the question: Who will pay for this global low-carbon campaign and the interconnected sustainable development goals? The Glasgow Alliance believes 70% of the funding for net zero can come from the private sector. While many types of financiers have obvious roles to play in theory, in practice we need an approach that will motivate and incentivize private capital to come off of the bench. 

One approach which captures the need for a shared financing approach is through capital markets-based public-private partnerships (PPPs). Simply put, since large sums of capital will be required, a project(s) approach based on the financial feasibility that capital market discipline would bring offers a path forward. We cannot afford to waste resources and time. The urgency communicated by scientists about the need to reduce emissions sooner than later means that financing such an energy transition has to be efficient, matching capital and timings optimally. 

Global capital markets offer a viable source of diverse funds, promote better governance, and can bring efficiency and transparency to the infrastructure financing challenge. The experiences to date with privatizations and securitizations suggest that a “market finance” approach versus traditional PPPs with “contract finance,” can create immediate private ownership of public-investment projects among diverse groups of investors. It can ultimately lead to more efficient and successful infrastructure development. Market-based financing solutions can help bring more rational economic decision making to infrastructure projects and the “real” economy. Projects should be founded on cost-benefit analysis for which public and private sector actors have an important oversight role. 

A role for markets

The financing of projects should be guided by global capital markets’ invisible hand to determine the economic value of an infrastructure project and provide the necessary resources for construction, operations, and maintenance. In this truer form of public-private partnership, government focuses on identifying and facilitating the project and then allows the private sector to create an efficient, sustainable public-works asset that offers a financial reward to risk-takers and its owners. When contractors and the trades lead project development, as with typical public sector-led infrastructure projects versus investors, their incentives often override performance and cost efficiency. 

Recent research has shown that public institutional investors in infrastructure that are Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) signatories underperform private infrastructure investors. This rests partly on the fact that they invest in marginal deals.[iv] For any new large-scale infrastructure project, securitizations specific to the project or initial public offerings of project securities can be designed with financial innovations. This would create diversification, liquidity, and mitigate many of the problems that accompany existing approaches in financing infrastructure. Importantly, it would foster transparency. 

Financial innovations in the securities offering can serve as both a deterrent and an incentive. For example, including event-risk provisions in project bonds can deter politicians’ attempts to make undesirable policy changes, fostering a more investment-friendly environment that developing countries often seek. Proper transparent management will bring its own reward through enhanced project value for the community and economy at large. In the end, the explicit costs of debt financing for infrastructure would be lower. Of great consequence, the invisible hand of capital markets may prove more capable in setting infrastructure project agendas which span varied administrations and political agendas. 

This approach would bring true public-private sector participation in sustainable development goals. It would ensure ample funding, strong interest, and awareness of a project on a global scale. Managerial incentives could be more aligned with productivity, thus reducing the widespread problems of cost overruns and inefficiency. Government—at central, state, and local levels—could be allocated project securities to achieve real public-private ownership. 

Market-based PPPs can address investor reluctance due to political risk and profitability concerns, bring projects online more quickly, and attract long-term institutional investors. This financing approach can be applied to groups or consortia of new smaller-scale projects as well. An IPO that includes an entire value chain from production to final consumer in the carbon capture space is an example. A sustainable complex of energy-related projects focused on renewable biofuels is a possibility, or a large-scale energy system specific to a geography or special situation would be a candidate. 

The transformational sustainable mission suggested by net-zero commitments of various global stakeholders, needs a novel approach, based on existing financial market structures. To rise to this 21st century decarbonization challenge, a market-based public-private partnership has the capacity to complement sustainable development with sustainable finance. 

Dr. Andrew Chen is Distinguished Finance Professor Emeritus, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University and Jennifer Warren is principal of Concept Elemental, a sustainable resources consultancy and energy writer.


[i] https://www.gfanzero.com/netzerofinancing/

[ii] https://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-system-makes-big-promises-on-climate-change-at-cop26-summit-11635897675

[iii] https://www.gfanzero.com/netzerofinancing/

[iv] https://www.unpri.org/pri-blog/the-underperformance-of-public-institutional-investors-in-infrastructure/8625.article

Using Capital Markets to Fund Sustainable Infrastructure

To finance the low-carbon energy transition to adapt to climate change risks, the International Energy Agency and other global watchdogs project that massive amounts of capital will be required. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, formed pre-COP26, estimates that $125 trillion will be needed to close the 1.5- degree scenario gap to the year 2050, also known as net zero. Specifically, from 2021 to 2025, $2.5 trillion is needed annually and $4.5 trillion from 2026 to 2050, over four times more than that of today. [i]

At the COP26, the Glasgow Alliance, financiers with assets of $130 trillion under their purview, plan to transition their portfolios to net zero by 2050, an enormous undertaking.[ii] Some large players have admitted they are not sure how to get there. That’s the honest truth. In their roadmap scenario of the opportunity set in climate-related and sustainability financing the idea of blended finance is posed for infrastructure projects that are typically financed by the public sector; blended finance, they suggest uses public monies to leverage private sector capital and is highly suited to developing country needs where the risk profile is higher. In terms of infrastructure funds, the Alliance estimates $972 billion is the amount needed or potential they could support to reach net zero goals, much of it focused on electricity infrastructure.[iii] Developing countries still need all other forms of infrastructure for water, waste, transportation and the like. Many of the net-zero roadmaps are more geared to industry sectors touching the low-carbon energy space. 

Off the sidelines

The outsized amounts of capital requirements being put forth begs the question: Who will pay for this global low-carbon campaign and the interconnected sustainable development goals? The Glasgow Alliance believes 70% of the funding for net zero can come from the private sector. While many types of financiers have obvious roles to play in theory, in practice we need an approach that will motivate and incentivize private capital to come off of the bench. 

One approach which captures the need for a shared financing approach is through capital markets-based public-private partnerships (PPPs). Simply put, since large sums of capital will be required, a project(s) approach based on the financial feasibility that capital market discipline would bring offers a path forward. We cannot afford to waste resources and time. The urgency communicated by scientists about the need to reduce emissions sooner than later means that financing such an energy transition has to be efficient, matching capital and timings optimally. 

Global capital markets offer a viable source of diverse funds, promote better governance, and can bring efficiency and transparency to the infrastructure financing challenge. The experiences to date with privatizations and securitizations suggest that a “market finance” approach versus traditional PPPs with “contract finance,” can create immediate private ownership of public-investment projects among diverse groups of investors. It can ultimately lead to more efficient and successful infrastructure development. Market-based financing solutions can help bring more rational economic decision making to infrastructure projects and the “real” economy. Projects should be founded on cost-benefit analysis for which public and private sector actors have an important oversight role. 

A role for markets

The financing of projects should be guided by global capital markets’ invisible hand to determine the economic value of an infrastructure project and provide the necessary resources for construction, operations, and maintenance. In this truer form of public-private partnership, government focuses on identifying and facilitating the project and then allows the private sector to create an efficient, sustainable public-works asset that offers a financial reward to risk-takers and its owners. When contractors and the trades lead project development, as with typical public sector-led infrastructure projects versus investors, their incentives often override performance and cost efficiency. 

Recent research has shown that public institutional investors in infrastructure that are Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) signatories underperform private infrastructure investors. This rests partly on the fact that they invest in marginal deals.[iv] For any new large-scale infrastructure project, securitizations specific to the project or initial public offerings of project securities can be designed with financial innovations. This would create diversification, liquidity, and mitigate many of the problems that accompany existing approaches in financing infrastructure. Importantly, it would foster transparency. 

Financial innovations in the securities offering can serve as both a deterrent and an incentive. For example, including event-risk provisions in project bonds can deter politicians’ attempts to make undesirable policy changes, fostering a more investment-friendly environment that developing countries often seek. Proper transparent management will bring its own reward through enhanced project value for the community and economy at large. In the end, the explicit costs of debt financing for infrastructure would be lower. Of great consequence, the invisible hand of capital markets may prove more capable in setting infrastructure project agendas which span varied administrations and political agendas. 

This approach would bring true public-private sector participation in sustainable development goals. It would ensure ample funding, strong interest, and awareness of a project on a global scale. Managerial incentives could be more aligned with productivity, thus reducing the widespread problems of cost overruns and inefficiency. Government—at central, state, and local levels—could be allocated project securities to achieve real public-private ownership. 

Market-based PPPs can address investor reluctance due to political risk and profitability concerns, bring projects online more quickly, and attract long-term institutional investors. This financing approach can be applied to groups or consortia of new smaller-scale projects as well. An IPO that includes an entire value chain from production to final consumer in the carbon capture space is an example. A sustainable complex of energy-related projects focused on renewable biofuels is a possibility, or a large-scale energy system specific to a geography or special situation would be a candidate. 

The transformational sustainable mission suggested by net-zero commitments of various global stakeholders, needs a novel approach, based on existing financial market structures. To rise to this 21st century decarbonization challenge, a market-based public-private partnership has the capacity to complement sustainable development with sustainable finance. 

Dr. Andrew Chen is Distinguished Finance Professor Emeritus, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University and Jennifer Warren is principal of Concept Elemental, a sustainable resources consultancy and energy writer.


[i] https://www.gfanzero.com/netzerofinancing/

[ii] https://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-system-makes-big-promises-on-climate-change-at-cop26-summit-11635897675

[iii] https://www.gfanzero.com/netzerofinancing/

[iv] https://www.unpri.org/pri-blog/the-underperformance-of-public-institutional-investors-in-infrastructure/8625.article

0