Addressing problems like climate change and biodiversity loss calls for new thinking about how to mobilize the huge volume of financing that will be needed. International cooperation must be re-framed as a collective endeavor in which all countries benefit, contribute, and make investment decisions together.
LONDON – Following the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Colombia (COP 16) and in the midst of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 29) in Azerbaijan, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Climate change and biodiversity loss are not just looming threats; they are already here, exacerbating social inequalities, economic instability, and environmental degradation before our eyes.
While these problems affect us all, they are disproportionately caused by richer countries and hit poorer countries the hardest. As G20 leaders meet in Rio de Janeiro this week, they would do well to remember that their countries are responsible for about 80% of both current and past greenhouse-gas emissions and should therefore be responsible for at least 80% of climate action. Countries need a new global framework, guided by clear climate targets, to govern industrial and financial policies, as recommended by the Group of Experts to the G20 Taskforce on a Global Mobilization against Climate Change.
Given the persistent failure to mobilize funds to combat climate-related challenges, part of this new framework must be a new approach to global finance. Unlocking the vast financial resources required to tackle the climate, biodiversity, and water crises calls for a robust global public investment (GPI) model.
We must start thinking of international cooperation as a collective endeavor in which all countries benefit, contribute, and make decisions guided by shared missions. Missions built around clear, ambitious goals can galvanize public and private investment and offer a roadmap for overcoming the financial barriers that have been holding us back.
The existing financial architecture is not up to the task of providing the necessary climate and biodiversity finance, which will reach an estimated $2.4 trillion each year by 2030. Wealthy countries have repeatedly fallen short of their financing commitments, and climate finance in general has been fragmented, unpredictable, and dominated by short-term private investments that prioritize profit over long-term environmental stability. Meanwhile, developing countries have faced high borrowing costs and mounting debts that make it almost impossible to invest in their own future.
The result is a cycle of inaction. Without sufficient public funding, it is difficult to mobilize private investment for transformative projects like reforesting degraded landscapes, protecting coral reefs, or building climate-resilient infrastructure. Wealthier countries continue to drag their feet, often treating climate finance as an act of charity rather than a necessary investment.
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
A GPI- and missioned-based approach can change this dynamic. Missions are ambitious, clearly articulated, time-bound objectives that mobilize cross-sectoral solutions to specific problems, emphasizing outcomes, not outputs. They are ideal for tackling challenges that do not necessarily have pre-defined or already-known technological fixes. Generating the necessary solutions requires a bottom-up approach to explore many options and mobilize economy-wide innovation, investment, and partnerships.
Mission-oriented policies can help us shift attention and financing away from specific industries, technologies, or firms, and toward shared challenges, as defined by the public sector. This way, all industries and types of firms with potential solutions can contribute to the broader effort. For example, policymakers might launch a mission to reduce plastic pollution in the oceans by 90% by 2040; end deforestation in the Amazon by 2030; or restore at least 30% of degraded forest and inland water ecosystems by 2030.
The idea is to set bold, clear goals that focus minds and resources on solving the biggest challenges of our time, rather than on small, piecemeal projects. Governments should not just fix market failures; they should actively shape markets and guide investment to areas that benefit society and the planet. But since this will not happen on its own, we need to apply a new “common-good” framing to policy debates, particularly in the global context.
To this end, the GPI approach reimagines how we finance public missions. In today’s system, international finance is largely driven by a donor-recipient model. Rich countries decide how much money to give, and poorer countries must compete for these funds. It’s a system that reinforces power imbalances and makes it harder for developing countries to plan for the long term.
GPI flips this model on its head. Not only does it propose that all countries – regardless of income level – contribute to global public goods like climate stability and biodiversity protection. Crucially, it also involves all countries in the decision-making about where money is invested and how it is shared, giving the Global South a powerful say in resource allocation.
This approach is grounded in three principles. First, all countries stand to benefit from a stable climate and protected ecosystems. Second, all should contribute based on their capacity, so that everyone has skin in the game. Third, all should decide, so that it is not just the wealthiest who control how the money is spent.
By linking the GPI- and mission-based approaches, we can unlock the finance needed to meet global sustainability goals. While a mission sets a bold target – like halving carbon dioxide emissions in ten years – the GPI model provides the financial framework – a system built on shared responsibility and mutual benefit – to make it happen.
The scale of the climate and biodiversity crises is often compared to the challenges faced after World War II, when the US-financed Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe’s economy. What the world needs now is a Marshall Plan for the planet: a coordinated, international effort to mobilize the funds, knowledge, and technology needed to address the existential threats of our time.
The world has enough money; it just needs to become better aligned. Public development banks alone hold $22.4 trillion in assets under management ($20.2 trillion of which is with national development banks). If multilateral and national development banks cooperate to achieve shared objectives, they could provide the stimulus we need to mobilize private-sector capital on a much larger scale.
This is not just about saving the planet. It is about creating a fairer, more resilient world for everyone. We are all in this together. It is time to start acting like it.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Bashar al-Assad’s fall from power has created an opportunity for the political and economic reconstruction of a key Arab state. But the record of efforts to stabilize post-conflict societies in the Middle East is littered with failure, and the next few months will most likely determine Syria's political trajectory.
say that Syrians themselves must do the hard work, but multilateral assistance has an important role to play.
The US president-elect has vowed to round up illegal immigrants and raise tariffs, but he will probably fail to reinvigorate the economy for the masses, who will watch the rich get richer on crypto and AI. America has been here before, and if Trump doesn’t turn on the business class and lay the blame at its feet, someone else will.
thinks the next president will be forced to choose between big business and the forgotten man.
LONDON – Following the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Colombia (COP 16) and in the midst of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 29) in Azerbaijan, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Climate change and biodiversity loss are not just looming threats; they are already here, exacerbating social inequalities, economic instability, and environmental degradation before our eyes.
While these problems affect us all, they are disproportionately caused by richer countries and hit poorer countries the hardest. As G20 leaders meet in Rio de Janeiro this week, they would do well to remember that their countries are responsible for about 80% of both current and past greenhouse-gas emissions and should therefore be responsible for at least 80% of climate action. Countries need a new global framework, guided by clear climate targets, to govern industrial and financial policies, as recommended by the Group of Experts to the G20 Taskforce on a Global Mobilization against Climate Change.
Given the persistent failure to mobilize funds to combat climate-related challenges, part of this new framework must be a new approach to global finance. Unlocking the vast financial resources required to tackle the climate, biodiversity, and water crises calls for a robust global public investment (GPI) model.
We must start thinking of international cooperation as a collective endeavor in which all countries benefit, contribute, and make decisions guided by shared missions. Missions built around clear, ambitious goals can galvanize public and private investment and offer a roadmap for overcoming the financial barriers that have been holding us back.
The existing financial architecture is not up to the task of providing the necessary climate and biodiversity finance, which will reach an estimated $2.4 trillion each year by 2030. Wealthy countries have repeatedly fallen short of their financing commitments, and climate finance in general has been fragmented, unpredictable, and dominated by short-term private investments that prioritize profit over long-term environmental stability. Meanwhile, developing countries have faced high borrowing costs and mounting debts that make it almost impossible to invest in their own future.
The result is a cycle of inaction. Without sufficient public funding, it is difficult to mobilize private investment for transformative projects like reforesting degraded landscapes, protecting coral reefs, or building climate-resilient infrastructure. Wealthier countries continue to drag their feet, often treating climate finance as an act of charity rather than a necessary investment.
HOLIDAY SALE: PS for less than $0.7 per week
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
A GPI- and missioned-based approach can change this dynamic. Missions are ambitious, clearly articulated, time-bound objectives that mobilize cross-sectoral solutions to specific problems, emphasizing outcomes, not outputs. They are ideal for tackling challenges that do not necessarily have pre-defined or already-known technological fixes. Generating the necessary solutions requires a bottom-up approach to explore many options and mobilize economy-wide innovation, investment, and partnerships.
Mission-oriented policies can help us shift attention and financing away from specific industries, technologies, or firms, and toward shared challenges, as defined by the public sector. This way, all industries and types of firms with potential solutions can contribute to the broader effort. For example, policymakers might launch a mission to reduce plastic pollution in the oceans by 90% by 2040; end deforestation in the Amazon by 2030; or restore at least 30% of degraded forest and inland water ecosystems by 2030.
The idea is to set bold, clear goals that focus minds and resources on solving the biggest challenges of our time, rather than on small, piecemeal projects. Governments should not just fix market failures; they should actively shape markets and guide investment to areas that benefit society and the planet. But since this will not happen on its own, we need to apply a new “common-good” framing to policy debates, particularly in the global context.
To this end, the GPI approach reimagines how we finance public missions. In today’s system, international finance is largely driven by a donor-recipient model. Rich countries decide how much money to give, and poorer countries must compete for these funds. It’s a system that reinforces power imbalances and makes it harder for developing countries to plan for the long term.
GPI flips this model on its head. Not only does it propose that all countries – regardless of income level – contribute to global public goods like climate stability and biodiversity protection. Crucially, it also involves all countries in the decision-making about where money is invested and how it is shared, giving the Global South a powerful say in resource allocation.
This approach is grounded in three principles. First, all countries stand to benefit from a stable climate and protected ecosystems. Second, all should contribute based on their capacity, so that everyone has skin in the game. Third, all should decide, so that it is not just the wealthiest who control how the money is spent.
By linking the GPI- and mission-based approaches, we can unlock the finance needed to meet global sustainability goals. While a mission sets a bold target – like halving carbon dioxide emissions in ten years – the GPI model provides the financial framework – a system built on shared responsibility and mutual benefit – to make it happen.
The scale of the climate and biodiversity crises is often compared to the challenges faced after World War II, when the US-financed Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe’s economy. What the world needs now is a Marshall Plan for the planet: a coordinated, international effort to mobilize the funds, knowledge, and technology needed to address the existential threats of our time.
The world has enough money; it just needs to become better aligned. Public development banks alone hold $22.4 trillion in assets under management ($20.2 trillion of which is with national development banks). If multilateral and national development banks cooperate to achieve shared objectives, they could provide the stimulus we need to mobilize private-sector capital on a much larger scale.
This is not just about saving the planet. It is about creating a fairer, more resilient world for everyone. We are all in this together. It is time to start acting like it.
This commentary draws on the report “Unblocking Climate & Biodiversity Finance: Global Public Investment for Global Missions,” co-authored by Mariana Mazzucato, Jonathan Glennie, Daniel Ortaga-Pacheco, and Patricia Alemañy.