Our natural soundscape: Reestablishing a connection with nature
28 July 2025
The Importance of Language in the Work of the IPCC
28 July 2025

How Does Science Contribute to Climate Action? The Case of Climate Finance

© Anna Bernasconi

By Anna BERNASCONI

How can science contribute to climate action? Exemplified by the IPCC report[1], science performs three functions:  understanding – exploring – alerting. Its primary task is to understand the drivers, causes, and impacts of climate change and its interrelations with societal decisions at different governance levels[e.g. 2]. In collaboration with practitioners, this then allows the exploration of pathways how to slow down global warming and adapt as human society to a changing environment. This involves forecasting long-term consequences of inaction via scenario-building, formulating recommendations, and pointing to priority areas for policy and corporate decision-making. Ultimately, this urgency is communicated to the public, particularly raising awareness among politicians.

Examining climate finance, science has made significant contributions by demonstrating the consequences of failing to mitigate[1(fig. SPM.6)] and the human suffering if neglecting to assist those most affected[1(sec. A.4.5, C.7)]. In doing so, science helps underlining the significance of adaptation financing[3], including through the depiction of its interconnectedness with e.g. economic development[4] or biodiversity[5], thereby scientifically bolstering Global South calls for increases in donations[6(fig. 2.8)]. Second, scientists contribute to transparency by identifying barriers to increase finance, both related to politics[1(sec. A.3.6)] and economics[7–9], and by uncovering determinants of climate finance[10–13]. Third, science informs the methodology of how to distribute financial burdens by formulating equality principles[14–17]. Likewise, scientists provided suggestions for design principles in the creation phase of the Green Climate Fund[18], accompanied its early implementation through reviews[19], and are continuously suggesting improvements[20–23]. This is linked to the development of pathways to increase climate finance, ultimately aimed at limiting global warming[1,24,25].

However, these ‘successes’ shall not divert attention from the fundamental puzzle climate (ina)action is confronted with: the science on climate change is clear; the need for more climate finance is evident; and there are even different proposals on how to “fairly” distribute the costs on the table. And yet no major shift is happening. Of course there are flaws in science, enabling  its questioning on methodological grounds. Some critiques are valid, as discussed throughout the course, e.g. about methodological choices in IPCC reports like neo-colonialist biases to model negative emissions in Africa by 2100 or non-consideration of equity in SSPs; lacking transparency about everything not captured in modelling; and missed co-working across disciplinary groups. However, it seems to me that the accuracy of single numbers is actually not that important for action, as a) the basic tendency (climate change is real and we need more finance) would still remain the same; and b) correcting such flaws would increase all numbers in severity and not lower them. Hence, it rather seems to be political (un)willingness putting a limit on what science can contribute, as money allocation decisions cannot be forced upon politicians. Even worse in a sense, as the first global stocktake of the Paris Agreement[26(sec. C.1)] depicts: what scientists keep saying is indeed acknowledged by those in power– but simply not acted upon[27]. This does but allow the conclusion that economic interests trump climate science[28], however bullet-proof the latter’s insights might be.

Bibliography

1. Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinner, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P. W., Trisos, C., Romero, J., Aldunce, P., Barrett, K., Blanco, G., Cheung, W. W. L., Connors, S., Denton, F., Diongue-Niang, A., Dodman, D., Garschagen, M., Geden, O., Hayward, B., Jones, C., … Péan, C. (2023). Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report—Summary for Policymakers (First). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

2. Lamb, W. F., Wiedmann, T., Pongratz, J., Andrew, R., Crippa, M., Olivier, J. G. J., Wiedenhofer, D., Mattioli, G., Khourdajie, A. A., House, J., Pachauri, S., Figueroa, M., Saheb, Y., Slade, R., Hubacek, K., Sun, L., Ribeiro, S. K., Khennas, S., Can, S. de la R. du, … Minx, J. (2021). A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environmental Research Letters, 16(7), 073005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abee4e

3. Sarra, J. (2018). The Anthropocene in the time of Trump, financial markets, climate change risks and vulnerability. University of British Columbia Law Review.

4. Magacho, G., Espagne, E., & Godin, A. (2022). Impacts of CBAM on EU trade partners: Consequences for developing countries. AFD Research Papers, 238, 1–20.

5. Svartzman, R., Espagne, E., Hadji-Lazaro, P., Salin, M., Allen, T., Berger, J., Calas, J., & Vallier, A. (2021). A “Silent Spring” for the Financial System? Exploring Biodiversity-Related Financial Risks in France (Working Paper 826). Banque de France.

6. Cavaciuti-Wishart, E., Heading, S., Kohler, K., & Zahidi, S. (2024). The Global Risks Report 2024—19th Edition. World Economic Forum. ISBN: 978-2-940631-64-3

7. Espagne, E. (2024, March 12). Cross-Border Risks from Global Decarbonization [Slides]. Monetary and Capital Markets – IMF.

8. Espagne, E. (2023). Cross-Border Risks of a Global Economy in Mid-Transition. IMF Working Papers, 2023(184), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400254550.001

9. Schoenmaker, D., & van Tilburg, R. (2016). Financial Risks and Opportunities in the Time of Climate Change (Policy Brief 2016/02). Bruegel.

10. Snyder, D. W. (1993). Donor bias towards small countries: An overlooked factor in the analysis of foreign aid and economic growth. Applied Economics Letters, 25, 481–488.

11. Ugalde Hernández, O. (2022). Determinants of climate finance flows to developing countries in continental America in 2018: A cross-sectional analysis. Trama, Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 11(1), 182–207.

12. Basty, N., & Ghachem, D. A. (2022). A Sectoral Approach of Adaptation Finance in Developing Countries: Does Climate Justice Apply? Sustainability, 14(17), 10835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710835

13. Doku, I., Ncwadi, R., & Phiri, A. (2021). Determinants of climate finance: Analysis of recipient characteristics in Sub-Sahara Africa. Cogent Economics & Finance, 9(1), 1964212. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1964212

14. Farber, D. A. (2007). Adapting to Climate Change: Who Should Pay? Journal of Land Use, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.980361

15. Duus-Otterström, G., & Jagers, S. C. (2012). Identifying burdens of coping with climate change: A typology of the duties of climate justice. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 746–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.04.005

16. Dellink, R., Elzen, M. D., Aiking, H., Bergsma, E., Berkhout, F., Dekker, T., & Gupta, J. (2009). Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(4), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.009

17. Page, E. A. (2008). Distributing the burdens of climate change. Environmental Politics, 17(4), 556–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802193419

18. Bird, N., Brown, J., & Schalatek, L. (2011). Design challenges for the Green Climate Fund (Policy Brief 4; Climate Finance Policy Brief). Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America, Overseas Development Initiative. https://ecbi.org/sites/default/files/Boell-ODI%20Design%20Challenges%20Green%20Climate%20Fund.PDF

19. Bowman, M., & Minas, S. (2018). Resilience through interlinkage: The green climate fund and climate finance governance. Climate Policy, 19, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1513358

20. Scoville-Simonds, M. (2016). The Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Finance—An Overview and Critique. International Development Policy | Revue Internationale de Politique de Développement, 7.1, Article 7.1. https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.2243

21. Cui, L., & Huang, Y. (2018). Exploring the Schemes for Green Climate Fund Financing: International Lessons. World Development, 101, 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.009

22. Manzanares, F. J. (2017). The Green Climate Fund – a beacon for climate change action. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 2(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-016-0012-1

23. Afful-Koomson, T. (2015). The Green Climate Fund in Africa: What should be different? Climate and Development, 7(4), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.951015

24. Buckle, S., Mirabile, M., Jaber, A. A., Lanzi, E., Dellink, R., Symes, W., Elgouacem, A., Henderson, B., Ruijven, B. van, Dieckmann, U., Havlík, P., Kahil, T., Riahi, K., Wada, Y., Wagner, F., & Kishimoto, P. (2020). Integrated Policies for Climate, Air, Ecosystems, Energy and Transport. OECD International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1787/72776942-en

25. Paroussos, L., Mandel, A., Fragkiadakis, K., Fragkos, P., Hinkel, J., & Vrontisi, Z. (2019). Climate clubs and the macro-economic benefits of international cooperation on climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 9(7), 542–546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0501-1

26. Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. (2023). First global stocktake [FCCC/PA/CMA/2023/L.179]. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

27. Stoknes, P. E. (2014). Rethinking climate communications and the “psychological climate paradox.” Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.007

28. Aaheim, A., Wei, T., & Romstad, B. (2017). Conflicts of economic interests by limiting global warming to +3 °C. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 22(8), 1131–1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-016-9718-8