Experts in sustainability are raising alarms that the growing push for green finance—private investment aimed at combating climate change—may be glossing over critical concerns that could undermine conservation initiatives and exacerbate global inequalities. Researchers from the University of Leeds argue that the rapid expansion of green finance, while often touted by organizations like the United Nations as a solution to the climate crisis, might inadvertently lead to harmful consequences for both the environment and the people it aims to protect.
At the heart of this warning is the idea that putting a financial value on nature could fundamentally alter humanity’s relationship with the environment. “When we put a price on something given to us by nature, this fundamentally changes how we relate to it,” stated Julia Martin-Ortega, Joshua Cohen, and Ruth Bookbinder in their recent commentary for The Conversation. They caution that this financial approach could shift the focus of conservation efforts from moral imperatives to profit-driven motives, ultimately leading to the exploitation of species and ecosystems that are already in peril.
The authors further argued that green finance risks exacerbating global inequalities. Wealthier landowners—who control much of the planet’s land—are positioned to benefit disproportionately from green finance schemes, such as carbon offset programs or tree-planting initiatives. These projects, which generate revenue through carbon credits or other market mechanisms, are more accessible to the wealthy, leaving marginalized communities with little to no benefit.
“For example,” the researchers noted, “the ‘Mother Earth law’ in Bolivia enshrines the idea that nature should be cared for like family.” Such philosophies, they argued, are at odds with a model where nature is commodified for profit, and species are preserved only when there’s financial gain involved.
Fenecked green finance to a gold rush, highlighting that it has grown rapidly but without adequate scrutiny or attention to the risks involved. The UK’s pledge to invest £1 billion annually into nature recovery by 2030 is a case in point, based primarily on how climate impacts—such as biodiversity loss and extreme weather events—threaten to affect the bottom line of investors. The researchers warned that this profit-driven approach could ultimately undermine the true purpose of conservation, as financial considerations outweigh environmental and ethical ones.
In terms of solutions, the researchers emphasized that more than just setting standards or pursuing ethical investment opportunities, a deeper examination of whether green finance is a viable and sustainable approach is needed. One key recommendation is to ensure that local communities benefit directly from projects related to renewable energy and carbon offsetting, rather than large corporations or wealthy landowners.
“There seems to be an implicit narrative in favor of commodifying nature,” they concluded, “and while the risks are well-known, the commercial framing of these issues often overlooks the broader implications for our relationship with nature.” They stress the importance of reevaluating how nature is valued and ensuring that financial solutions don’t come at the expense of true environmental protection or social equity.
Related topics:
China’s Industrial Profits Decline Moderates as Leaders Pledge Economic Support
Oil Prices Steady, Poised for Weekly Gains Amid Optimism Over China Stimulus Measures
