Mark Carney, nekdanji guverner Bank of Canada in Bank of England, zdaj pa posebni odposlanec Združenih narodov za klimatsko akcijo, v The Economistu opozarja na to, česar se zavedajo (zavedamo) vsi, ki poskušamo pripomoči k zmanjševanju emisij toplogrednih plinov (TPG) v industriji. Vsi se zavedamo, da so potrebni veliki napori v energetiki, industriji in transportu za zmanjšanje emisij TPG. Vendar je pri izvedbi prišlo do zapleta. Prvič, regulatorji zahtevajo od finančnih institucij skladnost z ESG standardi, kar pomeni, da finančne institucije zmanjšujejo svojo izpostavljenost (naložbe ali kredite) emisijsko intenzivnim panogam in podjetjem ter povečujejo delež investicij / kreditov v “čiste”, “zelene” oziroma emisijsko nizkointenzivne panoge in podjetja. Gre za t.i. greenwashing učinek, ki na papirju sicer lepo izgleda, vendar ima v praksi ničeln ali celo negativen učinek.

Drugič, do tega negativnega učinka pride, ker na drugi strani vlade penalizirajo emisijsko intenzivne panoge z višjimi dajatvami na izpuste CO2 (zmanjševanje njihovih količin, kar vpliva na dvig njihovih cen). Emisijsko intenzivnim podjetjem se torej povišujejo stroški, na drugi strani pa imajo težave priti do finančnih sredstev za investicije, s katerimi bi prestrukturirali svojo proizvodnjo v smeri manjših izpustov TPG. S povečevanjem stroškov zaradi povišanih izdatkov za emisijske kupone se emisijsko intenzivnim podjetjem zmanjšuje denarni tok in s tem njihova boniteta in posledično možnost pridobitve kreditov in cena kreditiranja. Hkrati pa še želja po skladnosti z ESG standardi finančne institucije odvrača od kreditiranja “umazanih” podjetij, čeprav ti potrebujejo sredstva za razogljičenje svoje proizvodnje.

Istočasno ni na voljo javnih sredstev za subvencioniranje investicij podjetij v emisijsko manj intenzivne tehnologije. Na papirju so sicer na voljo sredstva iz Načrta za okrevanje in odpornost (NOO), RePower in Modernization, vendar poskušajte kot podjetje priti do teh sredstev! V Sloveniji so sredstva NOO v ta namen tako razdrobljena, da denimo sredstva na voljo ministrstvu za gospodarstvo (MGTŠ) ne zadostujejo niti za sofinanciranje dveh tovrstnih podjetniških investicij, namenjenih za razogljičenje proizvodnje in zmanjšanje porabe energije, zato pač ministrstvo teh projektov ne financira, ker si želi financirati čim več projektov. Druga ministrstva pa so svoja NOO sredstva že alocirala na številne druge majhne projekte. Program RePower je namenjen podjetjem v energetiki oziroma distribuciji, za program Modernization pa ni jasno, kaj bo vlada z njim počela.

In smo tam, da sredstev za sofinanciranje investicij v tehnologije, ki bi resnično privedla do razogljičenja proizvodnje in zmanjšanja porabe energije, efektivno ni na voljo. Ena izmed možnosti je, da bi vlada povratna sredstva NOO uporabila za nepovratne pomoči podjetjem v obliki sofinanciranja tovrstnih investicij. Torej, da bi se vlada v okviru alocirane kvote za Slovenijo zadolžila pri Evropski komisiji po bolj ugodnih pogojih od tržnih in nato ta sredstva namenila za sofinanciranje prednostnih investicij na področju razogljičenja in večje energetske učinkovitosti. Vendar za to na vladi oziroma ministrstvu za finance ni nobenega posluha.

Smo torej v situaciji, ko se vsi zavedamo problema, vendar so vlade in regulatorji spodbude in prioritete kratkovidno zastavili tako, da se oddaljujemo od cilja bolj učinkovite rabe energije in zmanjšanja emisij TPG. Iz tega vidika je spodnji komentar Marka Carneya morda en kamenček v budnici vladam in regulatorjem, da premislijo spodbude in da oblikujejo bolj ustrezne spodbude za dosego skupnih ciljev. Samo palica pri tem očitno ne more pomagati, potreben je tudi korenček. In to precejšnja doza korenčka.

________________

In a world starved of good news on climate, it is welcome that investment in clean energy has grown exponentially and is now running at almost double the rate of investment in all new fossil fuels. This year solar alone will receive more capital than new oil-and-gas production. As a result of these dramatic shifts, global carbon emissions from energy use may peak next year

But even as the arc of global emissions is finally beginning to bend, much more will be required to reach climate justice. First, clean-energy investment must rise from $1.8trn this year to around $4.5trn a year by the early 2030s. And crucially, heavy-emitting industries must begin to make their contributions. These sectors—materials, chemicals, heavy transportation—already generate almost one-third of global emissions. Based on current trajectories those emissions will rise by more than 30% by 2050—putting the world’s climate goals out of reach.

The challenges to decarbonising heavy-emitting industries are legion. These parts of the economy are both carbon-intensive and hard to electrify. Getting them to net zero requires building new low-carbon manufacturing facilities, developing sustainable fuels and green-hydrogen supply, and deploying small modular nuclear reactors and carbon-capture and storage capacity. Many of these technologies are nascent and all are uneconomic at small scale. Regulatory barriers are skewing incentives. And given the interconnections between heavy-emitting sectors, slow progress in one sector delays action in another.

As a result, many heavy-emitting companies are caught in transition traps. They know what they need to do but struggle to get financing to cut emissions meaningfully. Without clear paths forward, investors are demanding the return of cashflows today rather than encouraging companies to invest them for a low-carbon tomorrow.

Even financial institutions committed to net zero are facing pressures from stakeholders, including regulators, to measure climate performance by the absolute emissions of assets in their portfolios. This promotes paper decarbonisation—such as a bank that switches lending from a steel company to a software business to reduce its financed emissions—without cutting emissions in the real world.

We must tackle these issues head on, not least because heavy-emitting industries are essential to all economies, and will become even more so if developing economies are to continue to urbanise, industrialise and grow.

To get these emissions down, we must close three gaps: in data, action and investment.

Today, companies frequently lack access to the data on emissions they need to assess the carbon exposures within their supply chains, and financial institutions lack the information they need to accurately assess climate opportunity and risk.

Closing this data gap requires consistent, comprehensive and decision-useful climate disclosure. To that end, the voluntary, private-sector-led Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was launched at the COP in Paris eight years ago. Two years ago in Glasgow, building on the TCFD’s good work, over 40 countries created the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to develop a standard that can be applied globally and made mandatory.

The ISSB’s final standard has now been endorsed by IOSCO, the international body of securities regulators. It is comprehensive, proportionate and, crucially, includes Scope-3 emissions, which count those generated by suppliers and end-users, thereby aligning incentives across value chains. This is vital to decarbonising carbon-intensive sectors. It is time for countries to implement the ISSB’s standards.

Disclosure defines the problem. Action is needed to fix it. Every country, city, company and financial institution needs a credible, science-aligned net-zero transition plan to fulfil its commitments. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) is helping make these mainstream for the financial sector. Within the next year approximately 250 major financial institutions from around the world will develop transition plans, and policymakers in America, the EU, Britain, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore are recommending others follow.

GFANZ is also stressing that transition finance must mean much more than only financing clean energy, as critical as that is. It must also include financing heavy-emitting companies that are intent on decarbonising. To that end, GFANZ has developed guidance on a common definition of transition finance that includes “going where the emissions are” and backing companies with credible transition plans to get emissions down, and if that is not possible, to fund the managed phase-out of their “stranded” assets: fossil-fuel reserves and infrastructure that are no longer needed as the world pivots to clean energy.

These strategies should be complemented by a consistent method to assess the impact of financing. GFANZ members are developing methodologies for expected emissions reductions which financial institutions can use to quantify the “emissions return” of their activities. After all, the climate’s fate depends on what happens on the planet, not on paper.

GFANZ’s technical consultations are creating the foundation on which standards-setters and regulators can build detailed rules. These can prevent greenwashing and send a clear signal to the private sector about when financing the transition of carbon-intensive companies counts as a sustainable investment.

Finally, closing the investment gap in the most heavy-emitting sectors requires new partnerships between producers, their customers, suppliers and governments. These can deepen collaboration on new technologies, increase demand for sustainable products, and identify and dismantle regulatory barriers. When combined with transition finance focused on emissions reductions, this will help companies in the most carbon-intensive sectors make the necessary investments in decarbonisation.

When world leaders, scientists, civil society and businesses gather in Dubai for COP28, the greening of heavy-emitting industries must be a priority. Financial institutions are often criticised for investing too much in polluting industries. The reality is they are not doing enough. Industries such as steel, shipping and cement receive far too little capital to cut their emissions in line with the world’s climate needs. COP28 must break this cycle to get capital to where the emissions are. That’s the only way to bend the emissions curve in time.

Vir: Mark Carney, The Economist