“Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing. Global temperatures keep rising. And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible. We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.”
Introduction
The significance of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP28) in the global dialogue on climate action cannot be overstated. Set in Dubai, this gathering of climate leaders, advocates, and civil society representatives marks a pivotal moment in our journey towards a more sustainable future, with Climate Finance topics central to the discussions.
Climate finance, in its essence, embodies the financial streams and investments aimed at supporting mitigation and adaptation activities to counter climate change.
This year, COP28 unfolds against a backdrop of efforts aimed at transforming financial institutions and mobilizing new funds. Significant steps have been made towards this end, including:
- Updates to multilateral development banks.
- Discussions of debt restructuring held at the Paris Summit for a New Global Financing Pact.
- The United Arab Emirates’ announcement of a $4.5 billion fund for clean energy in Africa.
But, despite these efforts, the stark reality remains that global climate finance remains alarmingly inadequate to keep the global temperature rise within the crucial limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The discrepancy highlights an urgent need for increased private sector investment, particularly in the Global South and for adaptation projects. A need that becomes even more evident given the past and current state of climate finance.
The Current State of Climate Finance
As we approach COP28, the state of climate finance reveals a rapidly evolving landscape. In 2021/2022, average annual climate finance flows nearly doubled from 2019/2020 levels, and reached nearly USD 1.3 trillion. This significant increase was mainly due to a surge in mitigation finance, particularly in the renewable energy and transport sectors, accounting for USD 439 billion of the growth. Notably, methodological improvements and new data sources have also contributed substantially, enhancing the tracking and understanding of climate finance flows.
Global trends in climate finance
The distribution of climate finance remains uneven, both geographically and sector-wise. Developed economies continue to mobilize the majority of climate finance, with China, the US, Europe, Brazil, Japan, and India receiving 90% of the increased funds. This concentration highlights significant gaps in climate finance in other high-emissions and climate-vulnerable countries. Additionally, while energy and transport sectors attract the bulk of mitigation finance, industries like agriculture and emerging technologies like battery storage and hydrogen still receive disproportionately less funding.
The adaptation finance, although reaching an all-time high, falls far short of the estimated needs, particularly for developing countries. Moreover, this finance is predominantly driven by public actors, with private sector contributions remaining fragmented.
In summary, while climate finance has grown significantly, challenges in equitable distribution, sector coverage, and the scale of investment remain. These issues underscore the need for a more coordinated and strategic approach to climate finance, a critical topic for discussion and action at COP28.
Climate Finance Challenges
Despite notable progress in climate finance, challenges persist, particularly in equitable distribution and meeting escalating needs. It’s a simple truth that the current investment of 1% of the global GDP, is simply nowhere near enough to support the vast scale of initiatives needed to support the climate actions required to keep us within tolerable benchmarks. Looking forward, the need for climate finance is projected to increase dramatically – By 2030, annual requirements are expected to rise steadily, reaching over $10 trillion each year from 2031 to 2050. This indicates that climate finance must increase at least five-fold annually to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change effectively.
Delay in meeting these investment needs not only escalates the costs associated with mitigating global temperature rise but also with managing its impacts. The economic burden of continued business-as-usual investments includes:
- Heightened weather-related damages
- Increased production costs
- Substantial health expenses.
The geographical concentration of climate finance adds to the challenge, with developed economies, notably East Asia, the Pacific, the US, Canada, and Western Europe, mobilizing the majority of these funds. In contrast, less developed countries, particularly vulnerable to climate change, receive a significantly smaller share of global climate finance, exacerbating existing disparities. The private sector’s contribution, though growing, remains insufficient in scale and pace, particularly in emerging markets and developing economies.
These investments are vital to ensure that those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, yet least responsible for its causes, have the resources necessary to mitigate, adapt to, and ultimately overcome the challenges posed by this crisis.
Addressing these challenges necessitates a concerted effort to increase funding, enhance equitable distribution, and foster global collaboration, ensuring that all regions can effectively combat and adapt to climate change.
Opportunities and Innovations
Climate finance at COP28 is a dynamic arena, marked by both challenges and breakthroughs. Innovative market-driven solutions like tradable carbon credits* and debt-for-nature swaps are gaining traction. However, the absence of universally recognized climate finance parameters leads to discrepancies in reported investments. Experts advocate for more equity financing from commercial investors and stress the need for institutional capacity in poor countries to manage these investments.
Accountability in meeting financing promises remains a critical challenge, with wealthier nations often falling short of their responsibilities. COP28 discussions will likely focus on risk-sharing strategies, blending public and private money, and increasing grants to developing countries for local project ownership. Multilateral bank reforms are also on the agenda to attract more private finance for vulnerable communities. The European Union’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, implemented in 2023, is a step towards addressing greenwashing in investor markets.
Overall, COP28 presents an opportunity to reshape climate finance, emphasizing transparency, equity, and innovation to meet the urgent needs of a warming world.
The Role of Governments and Private Sector
At COP28, the evolving roles of governments and private sectors in climate finance will take center stage, and reflect a shift from traditional paradigms that highlights the increasing emphasis on voluntary contributions, while moving away from the erstwhile model of historical financial responsibilities of developed nations towards developing ones. This redefinition marks a notable departure from longstanding multilateral frameworks, spotlighting equity concerns in global climate finance.
Discussions at COP28 will focus on the need for reinvigorating trust and momentum in international climate processes. The Global Stocktake (GST) at COP28 underscores this, revealing a significant shortfall in current efforts to limit global warming. The summit must serve as a focal point for negotiating new financing arrangements, particularly the establishment and operationalization of the new Loss & Damage Fund. This fund represents a critical juncture in climate finance, with developed countries advocating for voluntary contributions despite pressures from developing nations for acknowledgment of historical financial responsibilities.
The contentious nature of funding sources for the Loss & Damage Fund underscores broader debates about the future financial obligations under climate agreements. Despite the insistence of developing countries on acknowledging historical responsibility, the final agreements lean towards voluntary support, indicating a potential weakening in the differentiation between the contributions of developed and developing countries. This outcome raises concerns about the adequacy and operationalization of the Fund.
These negotiations and the decisions made at COP28 will have profound implications on the future trajectory of international climate finance, setting the tone for how both government policies and private sector investments will shape our collective response to the climate crisis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, COP28 represents a watershed moment in the evolution of climate finance. The conference is not just a forum for discussion, but a crucible for action, where the urgency of climate change meets the complexities of global finance.
As the world grapples with the challenges of equitable distribution, scaling of investments, and fostering collaboration, the roles of governments and private sectors are undergoing a transformative shift. Embracing this change requires a commitment to innovation, transparency, and equity. The decisions and strategies forged at COP28 will be critical in shaping a sustainable, resilient world, where finance is not just a tool for growth, but a beacon of hope for a planet facing an existential threat. As we look ahead, the spirit of COP28 must galvanize us to create a financial framework that is not only robust and dynamic, but also inclusive and responsive to the needs of those most vulnerable to climate change.
(*) – For an in depth review on the evolution of emissions, climate impacts, and human activities exacerbating the problem, as well as how Carbon Credits can be part of the solution, check out our latest report here.
Image credit
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-