At IFGS 2025, the panel, titled ‘The road to net zero: clear and decisive, or bumpy and long?’ gathered perspectives from climate finance experts on how navigating sustainable decisions require nuance amid rising complexity.
Editorial
This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community.
Speaking on climate risk, net zero goals, and the green agenda were Dr. Enass Abo-Hamed, co-founder, H2GO Power Ltd.; Julie Louvrier, director of market expansion EMEA, WeeFin; Kerstin Mathias, policy and innovation director, City of London Corporation; Katherine Wilson, investment director, Illuminate Financial; moderated by Jane Michotte, CCO, Vested Impact.
Louvrier stated that climate risk is relevant to asset managers and insurance companies due to its measurable financial impact, however Wilson noted that in her field it is lower on the agenda.
Mathias stated there are three underlying themes that have been accelerated geopolitically:
- Supply chains are being fragmented;
- Climate change is increasingly being considered through a national security lens, which means where it sits on political priorities is different; and
- The climate finance space is becoming a more complex environment to operate.
When asked about how to spur companies into action, Wilson pointed out that profit will make the biggest difference, “Money will flow where money is made.”
She explained: “The opportunity for net zero is to show that you can make money in it, and that is the only thing that’s really going to move venture investors like myself, who need to find businesses that will achieve more than ten times return when we invest. One of the big challenges with net zero generally, is it needs to show that it isn’t about feel-good. It’s not entangled with every single societal problem. Net zero is about emissions, and what produces emissions, and how you can find ways to reduce that internally. When you can’t reduce that, find a way to offset that behaviour. We need a healthy, moving carbon market to be able to do that.
“There have been studies that show that if we do have $100 billion traded market in carbon, which is what most of the estimates say we are going to by middle of 2030; if we start to price carbon accurately, and have policies that support that, that creates jobs and money. That’s a £60 billion revenue opportunity for project development, that’s 17 million jobs. That is what will move the needle, not the feel-good factor. Someone will become very, very rich when they can work out how to produce cleaner, better energy, which is one of the factors within the net zero equation.”
Abo-Hamed said that business has optimised its returns and cycles, and policy serves a crucial role in paving the path towards sustainability. She added that we cannot expect action to happen at an urgent pace.
Adding to Abo-Hamed’s point, Mathias stated that regulatory frameworks are necessary and need to be more coherent – new markets and carbon needs should be routed holistically, and collaboration is essential.
Louvrier said that sustainable finance can be an accelerator for net zero as it aligns capital flows with climate goals: “The UK National Wealth Fund, they guaranteed £250 million in loans for social housing to enhance efficiency for social housing energy. Typically those funds would be available to be invested in low carbon heating and renewable energy, for instance. As an investor, you can decide to invest in those bonds, if you have the right tools to do so, to create performance. I’m in agreement that capital flow will go where performance is possible. At the same time, if you have initiatives, typically governmental, but can be private as well, where you create those financial instruments that people can invest in, it’s first step towards net zero.”
Wilson concluded the panel by explaining how companies are being pulled in too many directions in attempting to make everyone happy, and have the least environmental impact, however it is not that simple: “It is a highly complex topic that is being distilled incorrectly, and it is being weaponised across the political spectrum.”
She cited cost of living and energy bills as an example, pointed out that there are low-carbon options that are not good for biodiversity, and there are high carbon options that may be better ecologically. Decision-makers need to be able to weight the options and choose a path that is supported by policy and makes a profit.
The panel ended with speakers agreeing on how nuance is required in making sustainable business decisions, and that companies need to put in the work and do the math in order to profit from sustainability.
