Scaling climate intervention challenges

Surface reflectivity changes from carbon removal projects could rival their climate benefits. An important preprint asks questions in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies: changes in Earth's surface reflectivity (albedo) from large-scale CDR implementations could significantly impact climate, potentially overwhelming the intended cooling effects. This finding has major implications for climate intervention strategies currently being developed globally. The research demonstrates that when enhanced rock weathering (ERW) or marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) is deployed at the scale needed to affect climate change, the alteration of surface reflectivity can produce radiative effects that greatly exceed those from CO2 removal over decades. Their calculations show that even a small change in albedo of parts per thousand has a radiative impact comparable to removing 10 tons of carbon per hectare. Most critically, the authors identify that these surface albedo modifications (SAM) can work for or against climate cooling goals, depending on the materials used. Dark mafic rocks could increase warming, while whitish minerals like wollastonite could enhance cooling. This work establishes the urgent need for careful consideration of albedo effects in CDR planning and highlights key research questions that must be addressed before large-scale deployment. Kudos to Brad Marston and Daniel Enrique Ibarra from Brown University.

The ocean plays a critical role in regulating Earth’s climate, supporting biodiversity, and sustaining human livelihoods. However, it is under unprecedented stress from climate change, overfishing, pollution, and habitat degradation. In response, novel marine-climate interventions, for example, ocean alkalinity enhancement, large-scale seaweed farming, and bioengineered coral restoration, are being developed to mitigate and adapt to these challenges. While these interventions hold promise, they also bring significant technical, ethical, and governance complexities. Effective stewardship requires a coordinated, science-based approach that ensures these actions are scalable, verifiable, and ethically sound.  To address these challenges, we must prioritise interdisciplinary collaboration and robust governance frameworks. Current interventions are often assessed in isolation, leading to fragmented knowledge and missed opportunities for shared learning. Scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders must work together to develop standardised methods for monitoring, verification, and risk assessment.

Last month, I talked to 40+ finance professionals working across the climate capital stack. Here are the most pressing challenges, opportunities, and insights that emerged: ⚙️ Hard Problems - Even proven tech struggles to scale: EV chargers and energy storage are mature technologies, but their merchant risk makes traditional project finance models break down. - First-of-kind (FOAK) projects remain fundamentally hard: LPO funding is likely ending, and few alternatives exist. The good news? Several new funds are targeting this gap - worth watching closely. 💬 Communication Challenges - The climate finance ecosystem speaks multiple languages: VCs talk TAM and dreams, project finance talks DSCR, insurers talk actuarial risk. Getting deals done requires translating between all of them. - Risk/reward misalignment plagues deals: Startups and VCs chase upside, but deployment partners bear downside risk. This fundamental tension delays scaling. - Climate still fights for credibility: "Senior stakeholders don't even understand Scope 1, 2, and 3," one banker shared. "Anything labeled climate gets immediately written off as concessionary." 📚 Knowledge Gaps - Deal structures remain bespoke: While startups have SAFEs and mature sectors have established project finance precedents, new climate technologies lack standardized financing models. Knowledge sharing between successful deals is almost non-existent. - The "finance-ready" paradox: Capital exists, but most projects aren't structured to receive it. Companies often start thinking about project finance years too late. 🌡️ Climate Risk - Insurance is the canary: Companies are pulling out of high-risk regions and wildly hiking rates. - Markets haven't caught up: This risk repricing isn't reflected in broader valuations...yet. - This disconnect is both terrifying and the biggest opportunity in the space. 🔥 Hot Topics - Nature & Biodiversity: Hard to quantify but drawing serious LP interest - Resilience & Adaptation: Finding new momentum as climate impacts accelerate and we prepare for a "don't-say-climate" presidency - Data Centers: Energy use + AI boom = unavoidable focus - Geothermal: Rising star for baseload power, especially post-Fervo - Global Standards: EU's CSRD and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will reshape supply chains regardless of US policy, with real ramifications for manufacturers in Asia and beyond. These conversations revealed just how hard—but also how essential—it is to align incentives, build trust, and bridge knowledge gaps across the climate finance ecosystem. As Eugene Kirpichov just wrote—we need systems thinking if we're going to tackle these wider problems. Anything missing here? What's on the top of your mind for 2025?

Sustainable Finance Catalysts 🌎 Scaling climate finance requires capital and an enabling system of actors that can align incentives, reduce risks, and mobilize resources at scale. The table developed by S2G Ventures is a great tool to understand the different players within this ecosystem and the roles they can take. Governments are critical. Through regulation, taxation, subsidies and policy signals they shape investment flows. Convening organizations accelerate collaboration. By establishing standards and connecting stakeholders they support the adoption of best practices. Academia and think tanks provide evidence and research. Their independent insights inform asset owners and policymakers. Consultants support strategy. They guide asset owners through change management, design of frameworks and operational alignment. Catalytic capital helps de risk investments. Philanthropy and concessionary finance can crowd in private capital for climate projects. Corporates act as recipients and enablers. They bring knowledge of transition risks and opportunities while offering investable projects. General partners and intermediaries implement strategies. They build track records, design innovative structures and connect asset owners to opportunities. The strength of this system lies in its interdependence. No single actor can scale climate finance alone. Impact emerges when these roles reinforce one another. This perspective reframes the challenge. Climate finance is an ecosystem effort that requires coordination across actors. Recognizing and strengthening these catalysts is essential to mobilize capital at the scale required for the transition. #sustainability #business #sustainable #esg

Four major barriers stand between emerging climate technologies and adoption at scale. My fantastic colleagues at BCG offer a thoughtful take on how earlier pioneering technologies—wind, CCGT, renewables, LNG, and solar—overcame them. These lessons can be really insightful as we consider how to commercialize and scale the many other technologies needed for the energy transition. Some of what they highlight include: 👉 To succeed, emerging technologies must find effective solutions that address four categories of challenges: technical problems, offtake issues, market complications, and policy constraints. 👉 Today’s mature climate technologies met and overcame these challenges in various ways, including through standardization, modularization, government and third-party R&D support, demand aggregation, tolling agreements, and consistent government incentives and regulations. 👉 Critical stakeholders—private industry, early-stage entrepreneurs, financial intermediaries, and policymakers—can help emerging climate technologies accelerate at-scale commercialization by taking effective, tech-specific action along proven pathways. https://lnkd.in/gDPs8WJW Thomas Baker, Karan Mistry, PhD, Vinoj Pillai, Bahar Carroll, and David Cotton #ClimateTech #EnergyTransition #NetZero #Sustainability #Innovation #NetZero #CleanTech

Reaching net zero is impossible without carbon removal. Scaling novel carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods to gigatonnes is a major engineering challenge. As more projects are deployed, we have a better understanding about infrastructure and resource requirements. But also the science and policy around CDR is continually evolving as we work towards addressing open questions around efficiency, permanence, scalability, unintended consequences, and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) requirements. Our Novel CDR briefing report takes a data-driven look at DACCS, BECCS, mineralization, and terrestrial biomass storage. We look at current pricing and market demand, deployment progress and highlight key challenges and risks that urgently need further research. The CDR market is growing fast, but without robust scientific scrutiny, we risk misallocating investment and overestimating potential. Researchers, policymakers, and investors must stay informed and engage with the latest data to shape a credible path forward. Read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/eBz22m-B #CarbonRemoval #NetZero #CDR #MRV #DAC #BECCS