Macquarie Asset Management has closed a $3 billion fund to speed up the global energy transition. The fund, called Macquarie Green Energy Transition Solutions (MGETS), exceeded its original target after strong demand from investors. The money will support projects that cut greenhouse gas emissions and build a cleaner energy system.
More than 65% of the fund is already committed. Early investments target renewable energy storage, sustainable fuels, carbon capture, and electric transport systems. By backing both proven and emerging solutions, Macquarie shows that climate-focused investing is now central to its strategy.
Where the Billions Are Going
MGETS is designed to finance infrastructure and technology that reduces carbon. This includes battery energy storage, distributed renewable power, clean transportation, and sustainable fuels. It also covers carbon capture, recycling, and circular economy projects.
So far, the fund has backed 12 projects. These include Eku Energy, a UK-based battery storage platform; SkyNRG, a Dutch producer of sustainable aviation fuel; and Verkor, a French maker of EV batteries. These examples show the fund’s focus on areas where emissions are hardest to cut.
The fund also targets low-carbon technologies that are still developing, such as green hydrogen, carbon capture, and advanced batteries. These solutions are not yet scaled up, but early capital is needed to drive progress and lower costs.
Investing in these technologies carries risks. Costs are high, and technical barriers remain. But the long-term growth potential is strong. As countries and companies set net-zero targets, demand for these technologies will increase. Macquarie is positioning itself as a leader by supporting both current infrastructure and future innovations.
Key Features of the Fund
Here are some of the fund’s highlights:
- Fund size: $3 billion
- Focus: Energy transition projects
- Sectors: Renewable power, grid upgrades, clean fuels, storage, and clean transport
- Scope: Developed and emerging markets worldwide
- Structure: Mix of equity and debt financing
- Goal: Cut emissions and support net-zero pathways
- Investors: Global institutions such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds
This flexible structure allows the fund to support both large-scale projects and smaller ventures that need growth funding.
The Investor Surge: Why Demand Exceeded Expectations
The strong demand for MGETS highlights how fast climate finance is growing. Pension funds, insurers, and sovereign wealth funds see the energy transition as both a duty and an opportunity. They can back low-carbon infrastructure while earning stable returns.
The fund also shows how investment is expanding beyond solar and wind. Macquarie is putting money into enablers of the transition, such as grid flexibility, carbon storage, and clean fuels.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts global energy investment will hit a record $3.3 trillion in 2025, led by clean energy technologies. Of this, $2.2 trillion will go to renewables, nuclear, and energy storage — about double the amount slated for fossil fuels. Solar power could attract $450 billion, while battery storage investment rises to around $66 billion.

According to the IEA, global clean energy investment could reach $4.5 trillion annually by 2030 if countries meet their climate goals. Funds like MGETS are meant to help close this gap.
- SEE MORE: Clean Energy Beats Fossil Fuel in Historic $3.3T Global Energy Investment in 2025, IEA Report
Scaling Climate Impact: From Europe to the World
The launch of MGETS shows the scale of funding needed to meet climate targets. Private capital, alongside public funding, will be critical.
By committing $3 billion, Macquarie sets an example for other asset managers. The fund is also expected to attract co-investments and partnerships, expanding its impact far beyond its initial size.
Institutional Capital as a Climate Catalyst
Large investors are under pressure to align their portfolios with climate goals. They are looking for opportunities that combine stable returns with measurable impact. MGETS offers one way to do this.
Macquarie is not alone. BlackRock and Brookfield have also raised multi-billion-dollar energy transition funds. Together, these efforts show how finance is becoming a key driver of climate action.
Separately, a venture capital alliance overseeing $60 billion in assets has launched a $300 million fund to support climate-tech startups. Called the “All Aboard Coalition,” the fund aims to help firms scale from pilot to commercial stage.
It aims to close what’s known as the “valley of death” in clean technology. Backers include Breakthrough Energy, Khosla Ventures, and DCVC. This move comes amid a multi-year drop in climate-tech investments and seeks to restore funding momentum in the sector.

Opportunities vs. Risks: Navigating the Transition
The opportunities are clear. Demand for clean power, EVs, and smart grids will rise over the next decade. Technologies that reduce emissions will become more profitable as rules tighten and companies aim for net zero.
But there are risks. Some technologies are costly or unproven. Policy changes, such as shifts in subsidies or carbon pricing, can affect returns. Large projects also face hurdles with permits, supply chains, or local opposition. Climate risks such as extreme heat, flooding, or storms can also impact assets directly. Macquarie will need to manage these challenges carefully.
Early Momentum and Global Reach
Despite these risks, the fund has momentum. With over 65% already invested, Macquarie is moving fast. Current projects are based in the UK, France, and the Netherlands, but the fund plans to operate globally.
The name “Green Energy Transition Solutions” reflects its broad focus. It is not only about generating clean power but also about enabling systems that cut emissions across industries.
Looking Ahead: Funding the $4.5 Trillion Net-Zero Gap
The energy transition requires trillions of dollars in funding by 2050. This growth will continue, with more money flowing to energy storage, carbon capture, and clean transport.
Corporate net-zero pledges also create demand. Over 6,000 companies worldwide have set science-based climate targets. In 2023, companies with SBTi-approved climate targets made up 39% of global market value, rising to 41% in 2024. These businesses also grew faster than the wider economy, with market value increasing 16%, compared to 11% growth in global GDP.
This adds pressure on supply chains and energy providers to cut emissions. Financial players like Macquarie are stepping in to provide both funding and expertise.

Macquarie’s $3 billion fund is part of a much larger movement. To keep global warming to 1.5°C, clean energy investment must rise sharply over the next decade. Funds like MGETS can help connect technology developers, infrastructure operators, and investors.
The success of the fund will depend on two things: financial returns and real carbon reductions. If Macquarie delivers on both, it could attract more capital and inspire others to follow. That would speed up the world’s shift to a low-carbon economy.
The post Macquarie Raises $3B Energy Transition Fund to Boost the Net-Zero Future appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months 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”
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

