Climate Technology Finance

Nature finance has an investability problem disguised as a data problem. A few years ago, it was reasonable to argue that nature markets lacked data, tools and MRV infrastructure. Today we have more frameworks, more nature-risk tools, more disclosure initiatives, more MRV providers, more biodiversity datasets, and a growing number of MRV nature-tech startups. And yet, capital is still not flowing at anything close to the scale required. So maybe the bottleneck was never just “more and better data”. Maybe the harder issue is that many nature-related investments still do not fit into the underwriting frameworks investors know and is able/comfortable investing in. The risks are real. The timelines are long. The projects are often small or highly site-specific. Many benefits have no obvious buyer, no contracted revenue stream, and no clear market price. And in many cases, the cost of measuring and verifying outcomes can be material relative to the financial value created. That does not mean nature cannot be investable. Timberland and sustainable forestry have long been investable. I am quite proud of the work we have been able to do at BTG Pactual Timberland Investment Group making nature posetive outcomes investable. Structured the right way investments can have outsized nature and climate outcomes. Not all nature outcomes are investable simply because they are measurable. and MRV is not a business model in it self. • A dashboard does not create a buyer. • A biodiversity metric does not create cash flow. • More granular data does not automatically make a project investable. I think we sometimes overstate the data gap because it is the easier gap to talk about. It is easier to say "𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢" than to say: "𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴" "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬/𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘶𝘱" "𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬" "𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺" "𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦" "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘭s 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬" "𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴" Or simply: “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴” The next phase of nature finance I think should not ignore data. But it should stop treating data as the primary unlock. The unlock is not just more measurement. It is structuring and good sound cash flows. Aligning long-term capital, operational execution, market demand, risk allocation, and credible environmental outcomes.

What's going to close the $7 trillion gap in climate finance? One of my favorite reports each year from Climate Policy Initiative has some ideas for scaling the investments needed to align with a net-zero pathway. To my mind, this is the best report each year on the state of climate finance. It shows you: -Where financial flows are going from (across public and private sources) -Where money is going to (in industry, location, and activity) -What our estimated needs are across sectors and regions -The mitigation potential to unlock across sectors -Strategies for scaling both public and private investment. Here's a look at the sector gaps we are seeing to date and how they can be overcome. Energy systems- need a 2.5-fold increase in mitigation finance to align with average 2024 to 2030 needs. This sector has the highest emissions reduction potential, requiring investment in renewables, grid modernization, and storage solutions. Transport- also requires an almost 2.5-fold increase in mitigation finance, alongside a significant shift away from high-carbon investments. With a mitigation potential of 3.2 GtCO2e, priorities include electric mobility, public transport expansion, and freight decarbonization. Buildings and infrastructure- mitigation finance must rise nearly 4-fold. This is sector is generally climate-aligned, but further investment can realize its 3.2 GtCO2e mitigation potential. Focus areas include efficiency upgrades, sustainable construction, and low-carbon heating and cooling. Industry- a nearly 24-fold mitigation finance increase, along with reallocation from high-carbon activities, is needed to tap the sector's 4.4 GtCO2e abatement potential. Key areas include clean hydrogen, low-emission manufacturing of cement, steel, and ammonia, and carbon capture, and storage. AFOLU- holds great untapped emissions reduction opportunities—mitigation flows should increase 64-fold from USD 18 billion to USD 1,170 billion annually through 2030 to realize this potential. There is also a need to improve definitional boundaries and enhance tracking of finance flows to this sector. Check out the full report here along with the data and dozens of interactive charts: https://lnkd.in/esqBmpfe #climatefinance #climateinvestment #netzero #decarbonization #climatepolicy #climateaction #emissions

Sustainable Investment Framework 🌎 The evolving nature of investment demands a shift from conventional financial metrics to a comprehensive approach that captures real-world impacts. The Sustainable Investment Framework presents a methodology to assess investments across six key themes: Resource Security, Basic Needs, Healthy Ecosystems, Wellbeing, Decent Work, and Climate Stability. Aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it provides a roadmap to measure both financial returns and societal contributions. Resource Security focuses on preserving natural resources through efficient, circular practices. It reduces dependency on virgin materials, promotes recycling, and encourages sustainable resource management. As demand for finite resources rises, investments prioritizing resource efficiency will drive long-term resilience and competitiveness in the shift to a low-carbon economy. Basic Needs and Wellbeing are critical for fostering sustainable societies. Investments in sectors like food, water, healthcare, and housing contribute to poverty alleviation and community development. Wellbeing extends to health, education, and social justice. Metrics tied to these themes show how investments reduce inequality and enhance public services, fostering inclusive growth. Decent Work and Climate Stability ensure investments contribute to secure jobs and climate risk mitigation. Decent Work measures the quality and sustainability of employment, addressing fair wages and working conditions. Climate Stability focuses on aligning portfolios with efforts to limit global temperature rise under 2°C, highlighting the need to reduce emissions across industries. Launched by the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) a couple of years ago, this framework remains highly relevant in 2025. Finance will play a defining role in tackling global challenges like climate change and inequality. The framework ensures capital not only generates returns but also contributes to progress toward a sustainable future. Embedding it in financial decision-making will be essential for achieving long-term prosperity for people and the planet. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #investment

$20 billion. That's how much Brookfield just bet on the energy transition - in the middle of a "climate tech downturn." Brookfield raised $20 billion for its second energy transition fund - 33% more than Fund I raised in 2021. Let that sink in. 2021: Zero interest rates. Frothy markets. Peak climate hype. 2025: Higher rates. Cautious LPs. "Death of ESG" narratives. And yet institutional capital is INCREASING allocations. Here's what Brookfield is backing: $5 billion already deployed into renewable power projects and developers focusing on solar, wind, and battery storage. Not speculative moonshots. Cash-flowing infrastructure. Why this matters: → The energy transition isn't a trend, it's physics In 2024, global investment in clean energy reached an all-time high of $2 trillion, double the level of fossil fuel investment. → Policy uncertainty doesn't kill fundamentals Even with Trump administration cuts to climate programmes, commercial partnerships between technology providers and buyers in the US have continued to rise. → Infrastructure beats software in climate Climate tech investments grew 15% YoY, bolstered by growing demand for power and incentives. The three sub-sectors getting serious capital: 1. Grid Infrastructure Rising protectionism is making access to domestic energy and stable infrastructure a strategic priority. Every AI data centre, EV, and heat pump needs grid capacity. 2. Energy Storage Battery storage is no longer experimental. It's critical infrastructure. 3. Critical Minerals Mega-deals in nuclear, critical minerals, and sustainable aviation fuel show growing momentum behind technologies that anchor domestic supply chains. Bottom line: Whilst VCs debate whether climate tech is "back," institutional allocators are quietly deploying billions into assets that will define the next 30 years. If you're a founder building energy infrastructure or storage solutions, this is your moment. If you're an investor still "exploring" climate, you're already late. P.S. I'm connecting family offices with grid infrastructure and energy storage opportunities across Europe. If you want access to the deal flow, let's connect. #EnergyTransition #ClimateInfrastructure #SustainableInvesting #RenewableEnergy LinkedIn Linkedin News LinkedIn News

In recent posts, I’ve critiqued two widespread fallacies in sustainable investing: - That understanding “#systemicrisk” will somehow lead investors to mitigate planetary risks. - That entity-level targets and disclosures—no matter how rigorous—can drive the systems-level transformations we need. This post offers a constructive alternative: what pragmatic climate investment actually looks like. First, we need to stop conflating two distinct tasks: managing risk and addressing climate change. Managing financial and physical risks is essential—but it is not the same as financing decarbonization. Misunderstanding this distinction has led to frameworks that create at best, ineffective, and at worst, perverse, outcomes. Addressing climate change requires financing transformative systems change: reshaping energy systems, transport, industry, and digital infrastructure. These transformations cannot be delivered by the sum of firm-level targets or strategies, nor by any reallocation of capital by financial firms alone. They require multi-actor coordination around coherent roadmaps—combining technology pathways, institutional reform, enabling policy, and investment strategies. These are the transformations that will have the most decisive impact on decarbonizing our economy. They are not theoretical or impossible. They’re mapped out in reports like the International Energy Agency (IEA)’s Net Zero by 2050, as well as many regional and sectoral pathways. And yet, we remain far off course from global climate targets precisely because we are not orienting our actions around these roadmaps. Instead, we’ve focused on corporate commitments and disclosures that are not proxies for real decarbonization. They neither incentivize nor reflect the systemic changes required. Many of the most critical investments must happen in EMDEs, where future emissions growth will be concentrated. But most institutional investors do not invest in these markets due to high perceived risk (not a single low-income country is deemed credit-worthy by CRAs). That’s why a core part of pragmatic climate investing is addressing the actual barriers to capital mobilization: lowering the #costofcapital in EMDEs, designing innovative risk-sharing mechanisms, and the strategic use of public finance and guarantees to catalyze private investment. These challenges are structural—but solvable. Improving risk assessment and resilience is also essential. We need better integration of science and risk tools to inform strategic investments in adaptation and resilience. But this work must not be confused with—or take priority over—the urgent need to finance mitigation at scale. With clarity on these distinctions, and alignment around real decarbonization roadmaps, we can move from misplaced proxies to effective strategies—and deliver the transformative outcomes the planet urgently needs. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Darius Nassiry Allan Marks Mahmoud Mohieldin De Rui Wong

Alastair Marsh's recent thought-provoking piece in @Bloomberg highlights critical challenges with the current climate tech investing landscape Climate tech projects are capital-intensive with long timelines. Unlike software, much of climate tech requires massive upfront capital for R&D, pilot plants, and manufacturing before significant revenue. This demands longer development and deployment cycles (often 7+ years to scale) that exceed typical 5-7 year VC exit horizons. The classic VC model - built for rapid, asset-light scale-ups - often misaligns with the realities of many climate tech solutions, especially "hard tech." While there’s an abundance of early-stage VC capital for entrepreneurs, later-stage growth that bridges these projects from venture to infrastructure stage is basically absent—that’s called the missing middle. We need to adapt and supplement that approach by layering in other types of capital and bridge the "missing middle." A broader array of financing instruments is essential for climate tech to scale, including patient equity and growth capital, project finance, blended finance, and specialized debt models. Marsh’s piece lays out how family offices are uniquely positioned to be catalyzing players in this space. Their flexibility allows them to deploy capital across diverse segments, filling the gap and driving significant financial returns alongside impact. https://lnkd.in/gUf85Bwy

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

Pensioenfonds ABP committed €11 billion to climate and biodiversity investments by 2030! Not a pledge. Not a target. A mandate. And they are already deploying it. This has been years in the making. ABP has been investing in natural capital since 2007. Long before biodiversity was a boardroom word. Long before TNFD existed. Long before institutional investors started asking what nature risk actually costs a portfolio. APG, ABP's investment arm, built a dedicated team of investment professionals across the world, focused entirely on private natural capital. Forestry. Agriculture. Ecosystems. Real assets with measurable outcomes. In 2025, ABP renewed and expanded that mandate. €11 billion committed to climate and biodiversity impact by 2030. Not tucked inside an ESG framework. Sitting alongside infrastructure, private equity, and real assets in the core investments allocation strategy. Then the deals started. 1. Deal one. October 2025. United States. A majority stake in 70,000 hectares of sustainable forestry in the southern United States, through Molpus Woodlands Group. $462 million. One of the largest timberland transactions in the US in recent years. Expected to sequester nearly 2 million tonnes of forest carbon over the next 15 years. The first investment under the renewed mandate. 2. Deal two. December 2025. New Zealand. A 38% stake in Taieri Forests Limited, covering 24,700 hectares of plantable forest. Plus full ownership of Otago Estate Limited, a 22,550-hectare land estate. Two assets. Same mandate. No pause. The financial case is explicit. ABP manages over €500 billion on behalf of Dutch government and education employees. Its investment decisions are not driven by values alone. They are driven by what protects and grows a pension over decades: returns and ensuring a livable planet. When a fund of this scale builds an impact natural capital mandate, it is making a statement about long-term risk - not just long-term responsibility. Chris Martin, Portfolio Manager at APG, said: "This investment demonstrates how we can deliver on our client's ambition for real biodiversity and climate impact at scale without compromising on returns." That sentence matters. A purpose and a returns statement. That combination is what moves capital at scale. Nature is not in the ESG report anymore. It is in the portfolio. When the world's largest pension funds build natural capital portfolios, what does it tell us about where the value is heading? - Image: Mapping the planet's critical natural assets, published in Nature, Nov 2022

#Adaptation is an investment in our future In 2024 alone, the world faced 58 climate disasters, each causing over $1 billion in damages. Yet the adaptation finance gap remains as high as $359 billion per year. Every dollar we fail to invest leaves communities and economies vulnerable to escalating risks. New research by World Resources Institute shows that $1 invested in adaptation can yield $10.50 in benefits over 10 years. These gains go far beyond avoided losses, they include better health, stronger economies, and restored ecosystems. At the World Meteorological Organization, we see this every day. From strengthening early warning systems under the “Early Warnings for All” #EW4ALL initiative, to delivering climate services for critical sectors like #agriculture, #energy, #water and #health, our work helps countries turn science into resilience. Adaptation is embedded in our mission because good adaptation is good development. 💡 Adaptation delivers a triple dividend: ✔ Avoided losses from climate impacts ✔ Economic growth and jobs ✔ Social and environmental benefits The bottom line? Investing in adaptation is one of the smartest economic decisions we can make. 📢 It’s time for governments, development partners, and the private sector to close the adaptation finance gap. The cost of #inaction is far greater than the cost of #adaptation. https://lnkd.in/em-8q5EH

India’s Green Financing Opportunity Could Shape a Century   India stands at a defining moment where a growing economic momentum meets an urgent climate imperative. The capital we choose to deploy today, and the priorities that guide this deployment, will influence not just our development trajectory but also the century that India shapes for the world.   At a global scale, the key outcomes from the recently concluded COP30 point towards the immediacy of climate action and the pivotal role of green financing. With strategic policymaking and the emergence of a climate-focused entrepreneurial ecosystem, India has a real opportunity to lead the global cleantech transition and achieve its commitment to reach net-zero by 2070.   Today, Green finance is powering innovation and scaling climate action while enabling entrepreneurship and opening avenues in infrastructure and job creation. At the heart of this transition is India’s rapidly expanding climate-tech or cleantech entrepreneurship ecosystem. Entrepreneurs are building impactful solutions across solar microgrids, battery storage, EV charging, carbon capture and sustainable packaging. According to a news report published by Inc42, Indian climate tech startups attracted over $2.2Bn in new funding over the last 18 months. Despite this momentum, early-stage climate ventures, especially in Tier 2/3 regions, often face barriers in accessing institutional capital. The government is addressing this through policy pivots that strengthen transparency and build confidence in the climate innovation ecosystem.   Subsequently, upper-layer NBFCs, lenders and development finance institutions are collaborating to bridge funding gaps. We are also seeing the rise of innovative financing structures, including blended finance models that combine concessional and commercial capital, thematic green funds to de-risk early-stage investments and ESG-aligned investment frameworks. These tools are helping channel capital to the most impactful and scalable climate innovations. As policy intent aligns with an expanding pool of capital, I truly believe India is well-positioned to become a global cleantech hub. This convergence of finance, innovation and sustainability promises to power India’s transition, strengthens local economies, create green jobs and ultimately shape the green trajectory of the next century not only for the Global South, but for the world.   Now is the time for policymakers, lenders, investors and corporations to take unified action. If India accelerates its green financing architecture with the same ambition as digital and infrastructure transformation, India could set a global benchmark for climate-led growth. The next century will be defined by those who fund the future and India is on the right track to lead the change.