Beyond promises: Realities of climate finance justice and energy transitions in Asia and the Pacific

Jul 9, 2026

Upload by Jiven

Climate change is already causing serious harms worldwide and will intensify without fast, wide-ranging action to shift to low-carbon development. Climate finance must scale up dramatically, yet public budgets alone cannot deliver the needed investment. Drawing empirical evidence from Fiji and Indonesia, the paper examines how power relations shape climate-finance outcomes for low-carbon energy transitions. Findings show flows favor bankable, low-risk, high-return projects, often amplifying on-grid renewables while excluding smaller actors and deepening inequalities for vulnerable groups.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

Introduction

Climate change urgency and the role of climate finance

Justice debates in global climate finance

Policy initiatives and remaining research gaps

Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102550 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Research & Social Science journal [homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss](homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss) | Original research article Beyond promises: Realities of climate finance justice and energy transitionsin Asia and the Pacific | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Kirsty Anantharajaha, Abidah B. Setyowatia, b, * a School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University, Australia b Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, TU Delft, the Netherlands | | | | | A R T I C L E I N F O | | A B S T R A C T | | | Keywords: Climate finance Climate justice Energy justice Energy transition Fiji Indonesia | | Climate change is already having substantial adverse impacts across the globe, and these are projected to worsen dramatically in years to come without rapid and far-reaching measures to transition to low carbon development. Crucially, massive financial investment will be necessary to fast track a low carbon transition and the level of finance required will arguably be well beyond the resources and capability of public finance alone. With a focus on climate finance in Asia and the Pacific and drawing empirical evidence from our work in Fiji and Indonesia, this article investigates complex realities of climate finance as it flows to the recipient countries. This article reveals how existing structures and power relations impact the outcomes of financing transitions to low carbon energy. The findings suggest that climate finance flows primarily to the most bankable, lowest risk, highest return, and often the largest scale projects. Moreover, the prioritisation of large-scale projects tends to result in preference for on-grid as opposed to off-grid renewable infrastructures, the reinforcement of technological preferences of powerful stakeholders, and the exclusion of smaller projects and developers. Consequently, it could exacerbate rather than ameliorate existing inequalities with the most vulnerable groups gaining little if any benefits from such finance. This article concludes by highlighting the importance of designing climate finance governance and financial products that could mitigate multi-scalar inequalities and design the mechanisms that internalise the need for critical, intersectional co-benefit delivery. | | 1. Introduction As cautioned by recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, there is barely a decade for taking far-reaching action to avert a climate change catastrophe with existential consequences [1]. Representations of transformative climate action have moved from centring on international treaties and national ambitions to financing the transition to a low carbon, resilient future [2]. Indeed, climate finance is increasingly generating optimism as a ‘game changer’ [3]. In the global policy debates on climate finance, questions of justice have been particularly prominent. These revolve around the moral obligations of the Global North vis- `a-vis the Global South. The former, it is pointed out, has long benefitted from a high carbon economy and has better capacities to withstand climate change. Accordingly, it is argued that they are morally obligated to assist countries in the Global South that have been disproportionately affected by climate change impacts [4]. Such policy discourses have manifested in various global initiatives to facilitate the flow of climate finance from developed countries to the developing world. For instance, the ‘Roadmap to US$100 billion’—a global pledge to mobilize at least USD 100 billion per year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020—was explicitly concerned with addressing climate justice and mitigating the disparities between the developing and the developed world [5]. Similarly, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative is a global m

FAQs

What core problem does the paper address regarding climate finance?

It examines how the realities of climate finance justice play out in practice as funds flow to recipient countries and how power relations shape low-carbon energy transition outcomes.

Which types of projects tend to receive climate finance, according to the findings?

Climate finance primarily goes to the most bankable, lowest risk, highest return, and often largest-scale projects.

How can climate finance affect inequality for vulnerable groups?

By prioritizing large-scale, on-grid renewable infrastructures and excluding smaller projects and developers, climate finance can exacerbate existing inequalities, delivering little or no benefits to the most vulnerable groups.

Jul 9, 2026

Upload by Jiven