Editing
IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-4
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== 4.4.2.3 Financial institutions == <div id="section-4-4-2-x-block-1"></div> IPCC AR5 assessed that in order to enable a transition to a 2°C pathway, the volume of climate investments would need to be transformed along with changes in the pattern of general investment behaviour towards low emissions. The report argued that, compared to 2012, annually up to a trillion dollars in additional investment in low-emission energy and energy efficiency measures may be required until 2050 (Blanco et al., 2014; IEA, 2014a) <sup>[[#fn:r1006|1006]]</sup> . Financing of 1.5°C would present an even greater challenge, addressing financing of both existing and new assets, which would require significant transitions to the type and structure of financial institutions as well as to the method of financing (Cochrani et al., 2014; Ma, 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1007|1007]]</sup> . Both public and private financial institutions would be needed to contribute to the large resource mobilization needed for 1.5°C, yet, in the ordinary course of business, these transitions may not be expected. On the one hand, private financial institutions could face scale-up risk, for example, the risks associated with commercialization and scaling up of renewable technologies to accelerate mitigation (Wilson, 2012; Hartley and Medlock, 2013) <sup>[[#fn:r1008|1008]]</sup> and/or price risk, such as carbon price volatility that carbon markets could face. In contrast, traditional public financial institutions are limited by both structure and instruments, while concessional financing would require taxpayer support for subsidization. Special efforts and innovative approaches would be needed to address these challenges, for example the creation of special institutions that underwrite the value of emission reductions using auctioned price floors (Bodnar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1009|1009]]</sup> to deal with price volatility. Financial institutions are equally important for adaptation. Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler (2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1010|1010]]</sup> discussed the benefits of financial instruments in adaptation, including the provision of post-disaster finances for recovery and pre-disaster security necessary for climate adaptation and poverty reduction. Pre-disaster financial instruments and options include insurance, such as index-based weather insurance schemes, catastrophe bonds, and laws to encourage insurance purchasing. The development and enhancement of microfinance institutions to ensure social resilience and smooth transitions in the adaptation to climate change impacts could be an important local institutional innovation (Hammill et al., 2008) <sup>[[#fn:r1011|1011]]</sup> . <div id="section-4-4-2-4"></div> <span id="co-operative-institutions-and-social-safety-nets"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG are considered to be released under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
IPCC
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Page information