Measures to adapt to climate change are often seen as the Cinderella of climate action – largely ignored and under-funded, garnering only a fraction of the attention and money enjoyed by their wealthier stepsister: efforts to cut planet-heating emissions.
That image is even more true to life when it comes to attracting money from private investors. While producing renewable energy offers easily quantifiable results and predictable revenue streams, projects to lessen the negative effects of drought or rising seas are regarded as hard to gauge and nearly impossible to monetise.
There’s no money to be made from adaptation and so private investors steer well clear of it, the common argument goes.
The numbers seem to back this up: the private sector contributed to just over 2% of the average $63 billion per year in global adaptation finance tracked by Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), an international research group, during 2021 and 2022. That is a rounding error when compared with the estimated $215 billion a year needed by developing countries alone to boost their climate resilience, according to the UN Adaptation Gap report.
But some climate finance experts suggest this is only a partial and misleading picture, perpetuated through a lack of data and information.
Morgan Richmond, lead analyst for CPI’s Adaptation and Resilience workstream, says private investments in adaptation are likely to be significantly underestimated as a result of the colossal challenge in tracking them.
“Basically no private-sector institution is currently self-identifying its investments as adaptation even when it could,” she told Climate Home.
Re-evaluating private sector adaptation
An asset manager, for example, could inject some cash into a food company’s efforts to reduce heat-related crop losses along its supply chain. Its primary goal might be the protection of the firm’s productivity and, ultimately, the financier’s bottom line. In doing so, it also helps farmers better withstand the impacts of climate change. Yet, without reporting requirements or specific incentives to spotlight that, what is essentially an adaptation investment falls into an information black hole.
The limited data available on private-sector adaptation finance in turn reinforces the mantra that there are limited or no viable business models for adaptation, CPI wrote in a recent report highlighting its new efforts to bring more of these finance flows to light.
Women plant mangrove saplings along the riverbanks of the Matla river in the Sundarbans, India, to combat the impacts of climate change. (Photo: Avijit Ghosh / Climate Visuals)
Having developed a more sophisticated tracking mechanism, CPI found private adaptation investments were on average more than four times higher than previously thought in the period from 2019 to 2022. While researchers believe this is still an underestimate, they hope that better identification and recognition of finance flows will encourage more businesses and investors to become active in the adaptation space.
“The idea is to create a common language and allow institutions to get a better sense of what their peers are doing,” said CPI’s Richmond. “Hopefully that creates a sense of the market shift that is happening and those institutions will want to be part of it.”
Some multinational firms – including Nestlé, Danone and Unilever – say they have taken steps, including promoting regenerative green agriculture techniques, to enhance the resilience of their global supply chains to climate shocks. But, outside of the food industry, business action to promote adaptation action has so far been limited despite the growing risks to revenues.
It’s time to end the UN’s artificial divide between biodiversity and climate
In late 2022, at COP27, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) launched a bid to spur more private-sector interest in building climate resilience under its PREPARE Call to Action. In an update on its website this year, it says that 39 companies and partners have so far made voluntary commitments that will mobilise more than $3 billion to help people better manage the impacts of climate change.
The commitments include technologies to expand climate information and early warning systems, new financial products and services, innovations for climate-smart food systems and insurance solutions, according to USAID.
Overcoming risk aversion
Despite this government-led push and efforts to capture finance flows better in the data, many barriers remain in trying to channel more private funding into adaptation, especially in the poorer developing countries at the forefront of the climate crisis. Uncertain parameters for assessing the success of adaptation measures – and putting a price on the risk of funding them – reduces appetite among profit-seeking institutions, experts say.
At the UN level, diplomats and experts are now working on a list of indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation, a vague concept that was enshrined in the Paris Agreement in 2015 and intended to increase resilience-boosting efforts, especially in developing nations.
Parametric triggers: How small islands can escape the climate-poverty trap
A long-awaited playbook for putting the goal into practice, agreed at COP28 in Dubai last year, “recognises the importance” of the private sector – among various actors – in delivering it, though it does not provide specifics on what businesses should do.
One emerging attempt to overcome hurdles for adaptation funding involves “blended finance” mechanisms that bring together the public and private sectors. A public institution, such as a development bank or a government agency, provides early-stage concessional capital or guarantees that take on a substantial share of the project’s risk. This approach can lessen private financiers’ concerns and convince them to contribute funding that would otherwise not be made available.
In its latest report on international climate finance for developing countries, released in May, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said climate finance mobilised from the private sector for adaptation using public money grew from $0.4 billion in 2016 to $3.5 billion in 2022, although it noted that significant jumps in 2020 and 2022 were due to just a few large-scale projects.
Kenyan startup leads the way
One successful product of blended finance is Kenya-based ag-tech startup Apollo Agriculture. Since 2017, it has provided more than 350,000 smallholder farmers across Kenya and Zambia with access to loans that help them switch to more climate-resilient farming methods and thereby boost their earnings.
“Blended financing is very powerful,” Apollo Agriculture’s co-founder Benjamin Njenga told Climate Home. “We’ve been able to get support from DFIs [development finance institutions], which brought in concessional capital and credibility to the business to attract private funders.”
Farmers carry harvested rice at a paddy field following the effects of the worsening drought due to failed rainy seasons, in Mwea, Kenya, November 30, 2022. (Photo: REUTERS/Thomas Mukoya)
The company has propelled its growth with support from both public institutions, including the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and the UK government-backed British International Investment, and leading venture capital funds. It plans to reach more than 2.3 million farmers by 2026.
Apollo does not give out cash but provides credit in the form of vouchers that farmers can redeem upfront against a full package of support including agricultural inputs, like drought-resistant seeds and fertilisers, local training and insurance against crop losses. Repayments are flexible and kick in only after the harvesting season.
Busting myths
Njenga claims the secret is not only to give farmers access to new products and better technology, but to follow them step-by-step with “boots on the ground” and help them to make informed decisions. Apollo has built a network of agents that live in farmers’ communities and speak their local languages, he added.
“Farmers may not be aware that weather patterns have changed because of climate change, and risk losing their crops,” he said. “Our agents advise them with simple messages such as ‘you need to wait for three days before you do your planting now’.”
The model appears to be working so far. Apollo says its clients produce two and a half times more than other farmers in the region and are able to cope better with climate shocks. Around 90% of farmers pay back their loans on time, Njenga said.
Apollo Agriculture is determined to bust the myth that helping smallholder farmers adapt to the effects of climate change does not make business sense, the entrepreneur said.
“Many people think they are just poor people – but that’s not true. They are actually rich in resources,” he said. “What they are lacking are the tools and direct support to make sure they can continue to farm profitably.”
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Businesses may be investing more in climate adaptation than we think appeared first on Climate Home News.
Businesses may be investing more in climate adaptation than we think
Climate Change
“Sink or swim”: WA Gov hugely underestimating decline in regional gas demand while sleeping on green exports, new report finds
PERTH, Tuesday 13 October 2026 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, while offering a genuine solution for decarbonising Asia.
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State is a comprehensive analysis of the declining gas market in Asia, and the untapped economic opportunity for WA to become a global leader in green commodity exports while driving the regional shift away from fossil fuels.
The report offers key recommendations for the WA Government to support regional decarbonisation through an orderly phase out of gas exports in favour of green iron and other green exports. It comes as global climate leaders from across business, politics and advocacy prepare to meet for the Global Citizen Now: Perth event focused on decarbonising WA.
Key findings:
- Gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia: Gas demand fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns.
- Policy shifts in key markets since the war on Iran now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas: Japan, South Korea and China have legislated energy plans that prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- New WA gas would arrive in a saturated, uncertain Asian market filled with cheaper gas: The US is now the world’s largest liquefied gas producer and plans to double its capacity as it also targets Asian markets.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to sustain WA’s economy: WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars.
- Exporting more WA gas is likely to delay or impede Asia decarbonisation: Despite claims by the gas industry, there is no evidence that WA gas is displacing coal in Asia, and in fact diverts resources from genuine decarbonisation options.
Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA Government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise.
“The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.
“This report clearly shows that the WA Government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.”
Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory: “Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
A report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals the untapped green economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, which also offers a genuine solution for decarbonisation in Asia.
Is Western Australia clinging to a fading gas industry while a thriving green future passes it by? As major Asian trading partners rapidly pivot away from volatile gas imports toward cheap solar and battery storage, this report exposes a high-stakes choice: risk becoming stranded in an oversupplied fossil fuel market, or harness WA’s unmatched sun and wind to lead the global clean energy transition.
Summary
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State reveals that Western Australia (WA) faces a critical juncture as falling Asian gas demand, geopolitical gas supply volatility and accelerating renewable energy deployment undermine the long-term economic viability of gas exports. By harnessing its world-class wind and solar resources, the report demonstrates that WA can execute an orderly phase-out of gas and pioneer a green commodity export economy that could generate $987 billion in economic value by 2060, create 24,000 ongoing jobs, and drive a 9.6% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Findings
- Gas demand is falling in Asia – WA can no longer rely on gas exports: Gas demand in core Asian markets fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline in 2026. Legislated energy plans in Japan, South Korea, and China now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- Asia is increasing renewables, importing gas just gets in the way: Evidence from markets like Thailand suggests that gas imports are increasingly crowding out cheaper renewable energy investments and battery storage rather than displacing coal, locking in more emissions over time.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to decarbonise Asia – this is a major win for WA: With world-class renewables, WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars ($987 billion) and support a genuine 9.6% reduction in global emissions.
Recommendations to WA government
Recommendation 1: Plan an orderly gas phase-out aligned with a trading partner pivot plan
Implement a managed, orderly phase-out of gas exports aligned with trading partners’ decarbonisation pathways, rather than waiting for demand to collapse, by:
- Developing and implementing a staged phase-out of gas facilities aligned with feedstock supply expiry or typical end of facility lifespans.
- Committing to no new gas development for gas expansion, including Browse and Kimberley fields.
- Developing new, reciprocal trade relationships with existing gas trade partners, structured to progressively replace gas exports with green commodities – integrated with recommendation 2.
Recommendation 2: Develop an integrated green commodity export strategy, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub
Establish an integrated green commodity export strategy that immediately prioritises green iron development, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub, by:
- Committing to green commodity export targets to give industry and investors a clear demand signal.
- Prioritising green iron as the lead sector within the broader green commodity strategy, given WA’s iron ore endowment and first-mover potential.
Recommendation 3: Reject false solutions such as carbon dumping (CCS) and blue hydrogen
Reject carbon dumping (also described as carbon capture and storage, or CCS) and blue hydrogen as viable decarbonisation technologies, and prioritise green hydrogen and proven renewables for clean energy and fuel production by:
- Excluding blue hydrogen projects (and CCS-dependent projects) from all government support programs.
- Requiring existing hydrogen-based production (including ammonia, methanol, synthetic fuels) to have clear, near-term transition timelines to switch to green hydrogen production.
What you can do
Together, we can push for a prosperous green future.
You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
REPORT: “From Gas to Green” Building Western Australia’s Future State
Cleaner cooking projects in the UN carbon market will have to set aside a share of their credits to insure against the risk that the trees they save are lost to fire, drought or logging, after the market’s regulator rejected calls to exempt the sector.
The requirement is part of a new rulebook that the Paris Agreement carbon market regulator – the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – approved last Friday for programmes that aim to cut emissions by distributing new and cleaner cookstoves in regions that still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.
These are the UN mechanism’s first rulebooks for cookstoves, one of the carbon market’s most popular credit types and also one of its most criticised for overstating climate benefits.
They consist of two methodologies: one for programmes that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by distributing more efficient cookstoves that burn less wood or charcoal, and a separate methodology for projects shifting households to lower-emissions cookers running on electricity or liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Supervisory Body, said “this decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction”.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsetsLaunch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
Repeated delays are raising questions about the bank’s momentum and whether it can mobilise investment to finance Africa’s oil and gas ambitions in an era of energy transition
Exemption push rejected
More efficient cookstove projects earn credits based on the amount of carbon they save by preserving trees that would have otherwise been cut down and burned for fuel. But if those trees later burn in a wildfire or are logged, the carbon stored would be released anyway, erasing the climate benefits of the credits.
Several carbon credit developers, conservation NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) disputed that cookstove projects face this risk, in what critics described as a “coordinated lobbying campaign”.
They argued that, unlike forest protection schemes, this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. They also warned that requiring a buffer would impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities.
But the UN carbon market regulator was not persuaded by the argument. It decided that projects would have to protect against this reversal risk by handing over a percentage of credits to a so-called “buffer pool” instead of selling them.
‘New paradigm’
The amount of credits to be given up is calculated by applying different methods for natural risks, like wildfires, droughts or hurricanes, and human-caused ones, such as logging or land clearing.
For natural risks, project developers will need to apply local risk values derived from new modelling published by a group of independent scientists.
Campaigners have broadly welcomed the decision. Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch, said it sets a new paradigm for calculating reversal risk based on empirical data. “This approach is grounded in science and we hope to see this now being adopted by other carbon crediting mechanisms in the voluntary market,” she added.
Backers claim this method is more rigorous than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork.
Pre-COP draws attention to Pacific’s climate plight and 1.5C goal
Pushback over science
As Climate Home News previously revealed, the same industry and NGO groups that sought an exemption from the “buffer pool”, along with some corporate buyers, criticised the use of a study backed by the UN carbon market’s exper