“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 those climate initiatives that are 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
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits