Director, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment & Columbia Climate School MS in Climate Finance
25,695 followers
Even the world’s largest, most sophisticated investors—those that understand financial climate risk deeply—are structurally constrained from financing the transformations needed to reduce that risk at its source. Simon Mundy's recent Financial Times article on Norway’s $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund (Norges Bank Investment Management) is a powerful illustration. NBIM’s own modeling suggests that climate change could wipe out 19% of the value of its U.S. equity holdings. Yet its mandate—to maximize returns with reasonable risk—limits its ability to “more aggressively support climate change mitigation.” This isn’t a critique of NBIM. It’s a reminder that asset owners, no matter how committed or informed, cannot - on their own - deliver the systemic transformations that meaningful climate action requires. There is a better approach: coordinated, multi-actor strategies that are both more effective and entirely doable. Systemic transformations—redesigning energy systems, electrifying transport, decarbonizing industry—require multi-actor coordination, institutional arrangements, and financing tools that go far beyond conventional portfolio strategies. Moreover, two-thirds of future emissions are projected to come from emerging and developing economies. But most institutional capital is not flowing there, constrained by high perceived risk and low credit ratings. Mitigating climate risk requires unlocking affordable finance in EMDEs. Financial institutions can and should be core partners in confronting planetary and financial climate risk. But today’s dominant approaches—corporate target-setting, exclusions, portfolio realignment, etc.—are not enough. The more effective strategy for large asset owners who understand climate risk is to work with governments, MDBs, utilities, and real-economy actors to co-design and co-finance system-wide transition pathways. Another basic reminder is that finance follows markets, not the other way around. When coordinated transition strategies reduce fossil fuel demand, improve the risk-adjusted returns of low-carbon alternatives, and de-risk investments through mechanisms like long-term offtake agreements or expanded credit enhancements, capital will follow. Pressure on financial institutions alone will yield, at best, inherently modest and limited results. Some argue that in the absence of stronger political leadership, incremental steps by financial institutions are better than nothing. But in many parts of the world, the real bottleneck isn’t political will—it’s the structural constraints of the financial system and the lack of coordinated engagement among economic actors. In developed economies, much can be done through subnational governments, public utilities, regulators, and public procurement, even without federal action. What’s missing is not intent but practical, multi-actor coordination—and that is entirely within reach. https://lnkd.in/eueSRXqt