Globally, over 2.6 billion people still rely on traditional cookstoves or open fires to prepare their meals. These inefficient cooking methods contribute significantly to deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions while also posing severe health risks due to indoor air pollution. In the context of international development, the push for cleaner cookstoves has become a critical initiative aimed at promoting environmental sustainability, enhancing public health, and empowering communities, especially women and girls. 

Our team at Carbon Neutral has been working closely with Save the Children Global Ventures and the Save the Children Nepal Country Office to assess the feasibility of a cleaner cooking project, funded by Save the Children Italy. We delved deeply into the technical aspects, reviewing past projects, analysing data, and scoping locations. Yet Neelam’s words, in their beautiful simplicity, cut through months of complex discussions, reminding us of the heart of our mission: to improve the everyday lives of the people we aim to serve. 

In Nepal, cooking over an open fire or traditional Chulo stove is more than just inefficient – it’s a burden that disproportionately affects women and girls. According to the Clean Cooking Alliance, studies show that women spend up to 20 hours a week collecting firewood, this unpaid work not only reinforces gender inequality but also limits economic productivity. Furthermore, only 5% of households in Nepal use clean and renewable cooking technology, such as electric induction stoves, as their primary or secondary cooking mode, highlighting the widespread reliance on traditional, polluting methods. 

The smoke from traditional stoves is linked to serious health issues due to indoor air pollution, again, disproportionately affecting women and children. This exposure leads to respiratory illnesses and other chronic health problems, including eye diseases, pneumonia, and bronchitis. Our goal was clear: to introduce more efficient stoves that consume less fuel, cook more quickly, and free up valuable time. 

Nepal is among the most vulnerable countries to climate change. Its fragile topography, climate-sensitive livelihoods, and limited adaptive capacity put the nation at high risk. In this context, our work on cleaner cookstove projects extends beyond household impact; it represents a critical step toward strengthening community resilience against the growing threats posed by climate change. 

Our study focused on three core questions: 

• How can cookstove projects help achieve global goals for children and climate strategies? 
• How can voluntary carbon markets fund practical and high integrity cookstove projects? 
• What are the best practices and next steps to implement a cookstove project financed by the carbon market? 

The journey to positive change is rarely straightforward. We faced difficult choices between provinces: Madhesh, with its dense population and better electricity access, and Karnali, the “last mile” where help is urgently needed, but project implementation is likely the most difficult. We debated stove types, manufacturers, and distribution models. Yet all of these considerations were secondary to one crucial question: Would the community actually want to use the stove? 

A field visit from Pallab Regmi, Climate Change Advisor at Save the Children Nepal, underscored the importance of this question. Community consultations revealed a crucial insight: many past projects had failed because the stoves couldn’t properly cook staples of the local diet, such as chapati or roti. The regional chapati, made with millet, requires cooking on coals—a feature missing in many “improved” stoves. 

This revelation highlighted the importance of cultural context in development work. Providing a cookstove that can’t prepare a community’s staple food is not just impractical—it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the people we aim to serve. 

Data and research integration are crucial to our work. The debate on the benefits of cleaner cooking solutions is mixed. In the absence of project-specific evidence, projects should focus benefit claims on reduced exposure to indoor air pollution as part of reducing environmental risk factors for health outcomes rather than claiming the health outcomes directly. 

The lesson is clear: true innovation doesn’t come from boardrooms or technical specifications alone. It arises from listening to the communities we serve, understanding their needs, and co-designing solutions that balance improvement with applicability. Our final feasibility recommendations reflected this approach. While we covered necessary technical aspects—carbon standards, methodologies, and governance structures—we emphasised the critical need for community consultation and co-design. 

The team proposed creating prototypes for pilot testing, anticipating that several iterations might be necessary before finding the best fit. This approach acknowledges that the most effective solutions often emerge from cycles of trial, feedback, and refinement—all done in close collaboration with end-users. 

Our roadmap from recommendations to action includes key steps to ensure the technology is both accepted and effective in real-world conditions: 

• Community Consultations and Co-Design: Workshops and kitchen tests will be conducted with groups like Community Forest User Groups and local women’s groups. These sessions aim to identify specific cooking needs, preferences, and cultural practices, ensuring that solutions genuinely meet the community’s daily requirements. 
• Prototype Selection for Pilot Testing: After gathering insights from consultations, we will select prototypes for pilot testing, understanding that refining the technology may require multiple iterations. Testing will prioritise solutions that address local cooking requirements. To verify their functionality, safety, and durability, stoves will undergo evaluation at the Renewable Energy Test Station (RETS) to ensure compliance with the National Interim Benchmark for Biomass Cookstoves. 
• Pilot Distribution and Monitoring: Sample stoves will be sourced or manufactured locally to support the economy while balancing product quality, design, and cost. Distribution will involve partnerships with local organisations, government bodies, and private-sector collaborators to enhance community buy-in and logistical efficiency. Ongoing data collection will help refine stove designs and adapt deployment models to local needs. By monitoring emissions reductions and co-benefits, we aim to validate the potential of using carbon finance to sustainably scale the project. 

Our approach acknowledges that sustainable solutions require cycles of trial, feedback, and refinement, developed alongside the communities who will ultimately use these stoves. This approach, rooted in integrity and collaboration, lays the foundation for a program that addresses immediate needs while fostering long-term resilience and empowerment. 

As we continue with this project and others like it, Neelam’s words serve as a guiding principle: “At the end of the day, you need to be able to cook with it.” This simple reminder underscores that the most effective innovations understand and address the daily realities of the people they’re designed to serve. In the quest for global development and sustainability, the most profound insights often come from the humblest sources—like a conversation about cooking dinner. 

Contact us Today

Looking to develop or expand a carbon project that creates sustainable value, benefits local communities, and drives global impact?

Connect with Rebecca Pearse, our International Partnerships Manager, to explore how we can support your goals on an international scale.

Get in touch

Our Spotlight

Explore stories in the world of sustainability, carbon and climate change.

Falbala Returns to Eastern Maar: A Milestone in Land Justice and Carbon Farming

Carbon Neutral is proud to be working with Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation (EMAC) on a landmark project at Falbala, a 252-hectare property at Beech Forest in the Otways. On 3…

The market’s rediscovery of plantation forestry ACCUs 

For most of its early development, plantation forestry ACCUs occupied a niche position in the Australian carbon market. Long crediting timeframes, FullCAM-based accounting and permanence obligations stretching to 100 years made them slower…

From football to footprint: the carbon cost of the 2026 World Cup

Businesses have had to answer for their emissions and take real steps to offset them since 2013, when the UK became the first country in the world to make carbon reporting mandatory for its largest…

Unpacking Australia’s Biodiversity Claims vs Reality

Australia recently submitted its Seventh National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, its first under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).   At first glance the report suggests that we’re a nation “on…

Carbon Neutral launches Australia’s largest environmental planting carbon project.

Great Woodlands Renewal project to restore 28,000 hectares and establish 16 million trees adjoining one of the world’s largest remaining temperate woodland ecosystems. Carbon Neutral has unveiled plans for what…

Carbon Neutral Announces New Chief Commercial Officer

Carbon Neutral is thrilled to announce the appointment of Su-Mei Sain as the organisation’s Chief Commercial Officer.  Since joining the company last year as Head of Investment Opportunities, Su-Mei has played a key role in progressing the organisation’s commercial…

Rethinking Australia’s Natural Wealth Through Carbon

Australia is a land of plenty. “Our land abounds in nature’s gifts of beauty, rich and rare,” as the national anthem tells us.  But as a nation, we’ve struggled to properly value those gifts, let alone keep…

The Quiet Shift Reshaping How Australia Protects Nature

When Carbon Neutral launched the Perenjori Hills Sanctuary last year, the timing coincided with the release of the WA Auditor General’s overview, a report that assessed if the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions…

The ACCC and ASIC act as Australia’s competition and corporate regulators to protect consumers and investors and enforce laws relating to finance and trade. Both bodies are ratcheting up the scrutiny on exaggerated or surface-level climate and environmental pledges made by organisations.

The ACCC has announced ‘Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and greenwashing’ as one of its five priority action areas for 2022/23. The spotlight on the issue of greenwashing is aimed to help consumers better assess the accuracy of sustainability claims (e.g. ‘100% recycled’). It’s also hoping to better protect businesses who may be disadvantaged by competitors who are falsely claiming green credentials.

Misleading sustainability claims are familiar territory for the ACCC. Following the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal in which Volkswagen lied about faulty diesel usage software, the ACCC imposed a $125 million penalty on the German vehicle manufacturer.

ASIC is also reportedly on high alert to unsubstantiated ESG claims in the climate-related forecasts in the prospectuses of company’s seeking an Initial Public Offering (IPO) or sell shares to public investors. ASIC wants these sustainability predictions to match the robustness and level of evidence of their financial predictions. The regulator wants greater detail in the net zero targets organisations are setting that explains how these climate targets will be achieved, what risks are involved and what assumptions have been made.

The urgency of the climate crisis has seen more companies than ever before look to ESG and climate as areas of their operations they want to address or feel a responsibility to do so. Much of this relates to the goals of the Paris Agreement and net zero targets pledged for 2030 or 2050.

Consumers and investors also share the growth in expectations when it comes to sustainability. A March 2022 survey by the Responsible Investment Association Australasia reported that four in five Australians expect their money in super, banks, and other investments to be invested responsibly and ethically, and that 72% of Australians say they are concerned about greenwashing.

Community awareness of misleading environmental claims is increasing as the climate and biodiversity crises gain greater attention and corporate momentum, along with notable cases of large organisations doing the wrong thing. For example, the Australian Centre for Corporate Responsibility has brought a legal challenge to energy company Santos, arguing that its ‘clear and credible plan’ to achieve net zero emissions by 2040 was misleading due to the lack of disclosure of what this plan involved and how it would be achieved. BP was also prosecuted for its 2019 ‘Advancing Possibilities’ marketing campaign that exaggerated its sustainability policies whilst 96% of its expenditure remained in fossil fuels.

“Give me the target with intermediary step, give me the leader who is responsible…and give me the money you’re putting in it, and then I will start believing you. If not, this is greenwashing.”

Philippe Joubert, Fellow and Member of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability advisory board.

Climate and sustainability-related claims and disclosures to products and services need to ensure they:

• Can be backed up by high quality evidence accurate to the time they were made.
• Match up with the broader organisational goals and long-term strategy.
• Are well equipped to progress and be acted upon by having the resources they need.
• Are part of business risk and compliance assessments.
• Are specific to certain products or services and not generalised to the entirety of operations if they cannot be supported across this full scope.

At Carbon Neutral, greenwashing is an issue we regularly come across working in the carbon, climate, and sustainability sectors and with our clients and partners. We see it as our responsibility to offer guidance and advice on which statements are and are not scientifically legitimate and can be backed up by high quality evidence.

An example of this is the evolution of our business to introduce Carbon Consultants, who provide a high level of measurements that allow us to trust the data to the point that we can confidently approve reduction and offsetting claims. We acknowledge that engaging the services of our consultants isn’t always appropriate for businesses, and therefore we rely on trusting measurements that are obtained from third parties or clients themselves. In these instances, we are careful to not support carbon neutrality or net zero claims unless we have the highest level of confidence in the measurements.

While some of the bigger, large emitting companies are guilty of many of the worst examples of this, we also understand the difficulties for businesses that inadvertently greenwash when trying to promote their own efforts in the sector. As with any business, our systems and processes aren’t perfect 100% of the time and occasionally we become aware of clients that clients cross this line, at which point we make every effort to guide them towards a more authentic testimony of their sustainability and offsetting credentials.

Carbon Neutral takes this matter (and our responsibilities around it), very seriously and conduct regular internal procedural reviews to maintain best practice, while still trying to enable clients to promote their efforts in the most positive light possible. If you are concerned about greenwashing claims please contact us and we’ll be happy to assist you by providing our advice and industry expertise.

Three of the 37 methodologies used to generate ACCUs are under increased scrutiny:

• Human-induced regeneration – where landowners destock or reduce stocking to allow natural regeneration of vegetation.
• Avoided deforestation – which pays landholders for not clearing trees they have permits to clear.
• Landfill gas – which pays waste dump operators to limit emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

These methods are generating concern due to claims of not meeting ‘additionality’ requirements, which refers to carbon credits being generated to “not chop down forests that were never going to be chopped down, to grow forests that are already there, to grow forests in places that will never sustain permanent forests,” said ANU law school professor and former chair of the Emission Reduction Assurance Committee Andrew Macintosh to the ABC in a story for 7.30.

Emission reductions should not be ‘business as usual’, they must be additional to the baseline scenario. In other words, the investment by the purchaser should create new reductions in emissions that would not otherwise have happened.

Additionality is a real issue that all carbon projects cannot ignore. From their inception, the highest standard of land management should be maintained, be underpinned by the best ecological advice, and regularly reviewed by independent parties.

Macintosh and two CSIRO scientists, Kerryn Paul and Dr Stephen Roxburgh, have claimed that their analysis has revealed a substantial proportion of ACCU projects are breaching additionality rules and are underperforming, with skewed estimates of carbon storage. The Clean Energy Regulator, who manages the ERF, has dismissed these claims as false due to a lack of evidence.

It is critical that such claims be investigated, and the government’s ERF framework be independently reviewed and integrity restored. They should also seek to regularly improve based on past implementation, emerging technologies, and the latest science. If carbon capture claims are overstated, or would have happened anyway without the project, it hinders the planet and Australia’s formal obligations to the global community such as it has under the Paris Agreement.

For Carbon Neutral’s reforestation project, there are no questions of additionality breaches because this methodology delivers verifiable and tangible carbon sequestration outcomes. Its Yarra Yarra Biodiversity Corridor is Australia’s largest biodiverse reforestation carbon sink, having planted more than 30 million native trees and shrubs across over 13,000 hectares. The restoration project has taken place since 2008 on land that was once a thriving woodland ecosystem. Clearing in the 20^th century has now stripped it of over 90% of its original native vegetation. By planting a biodiverse mix of 60+ species endemic to the region where these ecosystems once used to thrive, Carbon Neutral is starting the ecological restoration process in one of 36 Global Biodiversity Hotspots.

The Yarra Yarra Biodiversity Corridor is the only carbon project in Australia to achieve Gold Standard-certification, which is the most rigorous framework in the world in relation to on-ground carbon measurement and sustainable development, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Establishment of new plantings and monitoring of existing plantings in the Corridor project is undertaken independently and is regularly audited in line with certification requirements. The plantings are also protected through a carbon covenant agreement that protects the reforestation for a minimum of 100 years. Fire management activities are also undertaken and the plantings are insured against any potential loss by fire, whilst many native species are resilient to fire.

An independent study recently identified, quantified and valued the co-benefits of the Corridor project and mapped these to 7 different SDGs to better understand its positive impacts. The benefits to the community include environmental, social, economic and heritage outcomes – comprising co-benefits of:

• Biodiversity
• Regional economic impact
• Soil quality
• Water quality
• Indigenous cultural heritage

Previously, the ABC highlighted Carbon Neutral’s Yarra Yarra Biodiversity Corridor in a story on Australian businesses taking the lead on climate action.

The changes announced to the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) now allow land-based ACCU project owners who are contracted to the government the option of selling the carbon credits they generate on the open market. Previously, they were locked into a fixed contract price averaging $12 per ACCU delivered to the ERF.

Selling credits to the voluntary market will likely fetch a far higher price, and fixed contract holders are expected to gain a $1.34 billion windfall from the amendments.

“These reforms will lead to more ACCUs becoming available to the market in an orderly and transparent way, which will help meet the increasing voluntary demand for domestic offsets,” Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor says, “This will allow projects to take advantage of higher market prices over time.”

Under the changes, ACCU developers contracted under the ERF can opt-out of their fixed price contract and can now pay an ‘exit fee’ equal to the originally agreed delivery price, and then sell their credits on the open market.

There are currently almost 131 million ACCUs not yet delivered that are contracted the federal government under fixed contracts priced between $12 to $18. The price of ACCUs on the open market surged to almost $60 at the beginning of 2022 and has increased 200% since the start of 2021. The government’s announcement on 4^th of March however saw ACCU prices drop to around $30.

The financial windfall brought about by the changes is ideally designed to flow to landholders developing carbon abatement projects. This is being tipped as a big win for farmers and landholders who host carbon projects, but there is no clarity on how the additional revenue should be shared between landholders and carbon trading companies that have assisted in project development.

Freeing up ACCUs on the open market is also timely for the large increases in organisations making net zero commitments and purchasing carbon offsets to achieve their climate goals.  “The strong growth in private sector demand for ACCUs shows that the market recognises and values their high quality and integrity,” says Minister Taylor.

The government also stands to benefit from the changes, pocketing both the ‘exit fee’ and the original agreed delivery price averaging $12 per ACCU they no longer have to pay, totalling to $2.68 billion for the Commonwealth.

Minister Taylor claims that this money will be reinvested in emissions reductions projects. However, the government did not provide more detail as to where and how exactly this money will be spent. There are fears funds could be directed towards controversial carbon capture and storage projects (see also) that don’t hold up in achieving the real emissions reduction that is needed in the current climate crisis worsening around the world.

Not everyone may stand to benefit from the changes, as reduced demand could cause ACCU prices to fall and make carbon abatement projects a less attractive investment. This could cause the environment to suffer if carbon projects don’t receive sufficient funding and support they require to be developed. There are concerns that these changes will make emerging carbon projects no longer viable.

The changes have also come under criticism for a lack of consultation with stakeholders in the Australian carbon market. The opportunity for public input and discussion could have been valuable and help to build community confidence, but perhaps was avoided because of market sensitivity reasons.

“While we welcome that the release will be staged and that exit payments will be used for ‘emission reduction measures’, we are concerned about the message this sends to the market about the ability for government intervention without transparent and public consultation at any point in time, if market dynamics change. We are concerned that continuing arbitrary changes in Australia’s carbon market will challenge investor as well as community confidence in supporting carbon reduction or removal activities credited by the Government with ACCUs.”

Carbon Market Institute CEO John Connor, in a recent media release.

The increased supply of ACCUs in the wake of the changes has driven down prices, making it cheaper to purchase offsets instead of spending more on measures that will reduce emissions in the first place. Incentivising emission reductions is crucial to faster and more impactful climate action so that carbon offsets aren’t used as excuses to continue emitting.

The government is currently staggering the number of fixed contracts that can be terminated to avoid the market volatility that would be created by a sudden influx of ACCUs on the open market.

The proposed changes also follow recent policy changes that propose a veto power given to the Agricultural Minister on some carbon projects, and that Climate Active certification will require at least 20% of offset credits purchased to be ACCUs.

You can find more information about the changes from the Clean Energy Regulator here.

Since the European Commission announced the details of the proposal of a CBAM on 14 July 2021, some countries, including Australia, have shown their discontent. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism intends to put a carbon price on certain imports as part of a more ambitious plan to achieve a 55 percent carbon emissions reduction by 2030 and become climate-neutral by 2050. Since 2005, the EU has used the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which allows the free allocation of emissions allowances to energy-intensive industries. Although this measure has been efficient when addressing carbon leakage, it has not provided effective incentives to reduce emissions.

The CBAM proposed by the European Commission aims to reduce carbon leakage, mitigate competitiveness risks, and increase greener production processes by replacing the system of free allocation. This system will impose the obligation to EU importers to buy carbon certificates based on the carbon price they would have paid if these goods were produced according to EU’s carbon pricing rules. By contrast, if EU importers can prove that they have already been subjected to carbon pricing in the country of production, the cost will be fully deducted.

The EU CBAM will be introduced gradually. Initially, this mechanism will apply to targeted goods at high risk of carbon leakage and carbon emissions such as iron and steel, cement, fertiliser, aluminium, and electricity generation that will become fully operational in 2026.

The main criticism from some Australian policymakers against the EU CBAM is that this measure is protectionist, suboptimal, and incompatible with international trade rules. While these concerns may be debatable in principle, there are many reasons to justify why the EU CBAM complies with the WTO principles as claimed by the EU.

In the first place, it is essential to understand that compliance with WTO agreements has not been taken lightly when designing the EU CBAM. Since the beginning of the discussions, the EU has involved different organisations and considered opinions from several stakeholders such as the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Budgets, and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. In addition, the European Parliament itself has also published a legal assessment about how to achieve WTO compliance.

In particular, Pascal Lamy, former director-general of the WTO and former EU trade commissioner, has defined the CBAM as a precautionary measure as opposed to protectionist. Rather than protecting EU producers from foreign competitors, the CBAM aims at protecting people from the risk of climate change. According to Lamy, WTO agreements allow countries to introduce regulations to protect their people.

Kristalina Georgieva, current managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has also expressed her support to the EU CBAM in the absence of an agreement on carbon pricing among major emitting countries, which would be the preferred option. In a press conference hold in September 2020, Georgieva highlighted the following “Acting within the EU will not be enough. The EU cannot stop global warming on its own. But it can bring the world together.”

The lack of global agreements and harmonisation about carbon pricing implies that countries or organisations leading this movement face the risk of losing competitiveness in a global economy. The CBAM acts as a border adjustment to carbon emissions to achieve climate fairness and similar treatment between domestic and imported products based on the principle of non-discrimination in WTO law.

Out of the different options studied in the impact assessment drafted by the European Commission, it was concluded that introducing a CBAM on selected products through certificates based on actual emissions will be the most beneficial. This system is based on real emissions, demonstrating that all imports from countries with similar reduction emission policies will be treated equally. Furthermore, the CBAM designed by the EU intends to allow all importers to calculate their carbon intensities to demonstrate their actual emissions.

Despite the fact it has been widely discussed, there have been a few examples of carbon adjustment mechanisms, and none of them have been challenged for alleged violation of WTO rules as of today. Even if other countries challenged the EU CBAM for violating some WTO rules such as tariff bindings, national treatment, prohibition on quantitative import restrictions, or most-favoured-nation treatment, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) contains some exemptions based on health and environmental reasons.

Some could argue that other measures less restrictive regarding trade could achieve similar environmental objectives. However, allocation of emission allowances, for instance, has demonstrated not to be sufficient.

In a globalised world where environmental quality is considered a public good, choosing not to implement specific measures to reduce pollution as a country’s competitive advantage can be regarded as a form of protectionism. Without a CBAM, Australia, benefits from exporting highly emissions-intensive products to countries with carbon pricing.

Indeed, the Sustainable Development Report 2021 released by United Nations ranked Australia last of all 193 countries assessed regarding actions taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This deliberate lack of action can lead to the view of Australia as a climate free rider on the efforts of other nations to combat climate change.

The CBAM proposed by the European Commission would not need to exist if all countries would apply carbon pricing. Based on the WTO principle of not favouring domestically produced goods over imports, the CBAM is only applicable to those products that have not been subjected to carbon pricing regulations in the country where the goods were manufactured. It is possible to argue that a single organisation should not pressure others to change their environmental policies. However, carbon pricing is not an aleatory tax. The purpose of this measure is to reduce carbon emissions and negative externalities. The protection of the environment is a shared responsibility, and as such, it needs to be driven by a global effort.

This article has been published under a Creative Commons License and was written by Iris de Orte Julvez.

Iris de Orte Júlvez is a qualified lawyer in Spain and work in compliance at Polyglot Group. Her international experience in law ranges from Germany to Belgium as well as Spain, both in private plus public entities, including the Council of the European Union. She holds a LLM European Master in Law and Economics and has completed a Certificate IV in Compliance and Risk Management.

The report by research firm BloombergNEF recorded investment increases in almost every sector tracked in the report including renewable energy, energy storage, electrified transport, electrified heat, nuclear, hydrogen and sustainable materials. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) was the only sector that saw a decrease in investment compared to 2020, but many CCS projects were still announced and underway in 2021.

Rising climate ambition and policy developments from governments and organisations spurred the record-breaking financial movements, along with the carbon budget of the Paris Agreement rapidly running dry.

Investment in renewable energy and electrified transport made up most of the global totals at $366 billion and $273 billion respectively. Electric vehicle investment grew at the massive rate of 77% in 2021.

The Asia Pacific region represented nearly half of the total investment and also recorded the largest growth rate at 38% in 2021. Part of this is accounted for by China leading global investment in low-carbon technologies, delivering $266 billion in 2021.

The report also maps out the financial commitment that’s needed to align with a goal of 1.75°C global warming. Investment levels will need to triple to $2.1 trillion by 2022-2025, and then double again to $4.2 trillion between 2026 and 2030.

It’s clear that climate commitments and ambition have great potential to secure the financial backing they require to take action on the climate crisis. Real success, however, will only be possible with less investment in other industries that continue to damage the environment and if change comes in an equitable and ethical way.