SXSW London Debates: Is The Green Transition Financially Viable?

Forbes

15 hours ago

Rhian-Mari Thomas argues that the green transition is financially viable at SXSW London, referencing ... More the record amount of investment in the sector in 2024
Thought leaders across green finance and economics gathered to debate the financial viability of climate progress on day four of SXSW London. Held at the innovation and ideas festival's Climate & Nature House, a space hosted by Bellwethers to have meaningful environmental conversations, the session followed a traditional debate format encouraging a jovial air of competition.
Sophie Lambin, founder and CEO of Kite Insights, and Stephen Dunbar-Johnson, president, international at the New York Times Company moderated the conversation. Lambin clarified that the debaters were tasked with addressing whether we can realistically and successfully invest our way to a green future, considering our current economic system and the state of the climate emergency, or whether we need new financial tools and a financial system.
Arguing for the notion that 'the green transition is financially viable' were Rhian-Mari Thomas, CEO Green Finance Institute, Marisa Drew, chief sustainability officer, Standard Chartered Bank, and Fiona Howarth, CEO of Octopus Electric Vehicles.
Arguing against the notion were Kathy Boughman McLeod, CEO Climate Resilience for All, Chaitanya Kumar, head of economy & environment at New Economics Foundation and Erinch Sahan, business and enterprise lead at Doughnut Economics Action Lab.
Each debater was given three minutes to make their case.
The debaters prepare their arguments on stage at SXSW London
In support of the motion, Thomas started the conversation by saying that the green transition is 'economically strategic, it is socially imperative, and it is already underway.' She highlighted that a record $2.1 trillion was invested in green energy technology in 2024 according to BloombergNEF. Thomas sees this as evidence that the financial markets view green investments as smart economic strategy that not only provides financial opportunity, but protects us from the social and economic damage of the climate crisis.
Howarth drew on the enormous success of her employer, Octopus Energy Group, as evidence that current investment is working. Started nine years ago, the company now employs 10,000 people and is valued at $9 billion while making green energy a viable option for consumers. She says this is thanks to 'smart innovators', and 'clever policy mechanisms'.
Drew, instead, highlighted that emerging markets such as India, China, Indonesia and Middle Eastern countries have some of the fastest growing economies and are doubling down on green energy transition. 'What is Saudi Arabia doing? It is spending billions, if not trillions, on diversifying its economy. What does that tell you? The energy transition is viable, and the old way is no longer going to be the case in the not-too-distant future,' she argued.
The first rebuttal came from Sahan, who highlighted that while $2.1 trillion was invested in green energy last year, the Climate Policy Initiative estimates that $6 trillion per year is needed to fund a green transition. He also argued that financial viability of a movement currently means that it is still satisfying the ROI needs of the financial market. 'These parameters are holding us back,' he said, taking off his belt to use as a symbol that financial markets are placing a straightjacket on businesses and governments to make progress on climate. He then pulled out an apple to make the point that the current green transition focuses on low hanging fruit, undermining the need for larger systemic change that picks the fruit at the top of the tree too.
Chaitanya Kumar argued that the current financial system is too heavily influenced by fossil fuel ... More companies to be a fully viable solution to the green transition
Kumar's speech made the point that large investment funds have interests in many of the biggest companies in the world as well as oil and gas companies, intrinsically tying them together, and creating strong lobbying power. 'Incumbent power and the political economy of the transition is still very much held by fossil fuel interests around the world,' he said. He drew on examples of the lobbying by fossil fuel companies which saw the EU label natural gas as a 'green energy' in 2022 and Microsoft's pivot on its sustainability strategy to adjust for escalating AI emissions.
Finally, McLeod, highlighted the social costs, as well as the environmental costs of the current system. 'The market we have, not necessarily the market we wish to have, incentivizes pollution, devalues people and overlooks protection,' she told the audience. Addressing the plight of informal women workers who are on the frontline of the climate crisis, she said: 'This economy is chaos. We cannot maintain these expectations of return and believe that there is a green future. That is a fantasy.'
The debate was declared a tie after the audience were invited to applaud the team they felt debated the best.
Summarising the conversation, Dunbar-Johnson emphasised the importance of debate on these issues: 'What you did is encapsulate the complexity of the arguments in these subjects. This is a subject that we must grapple with. If the money is there, do we have the political solutions to drive that? We do have instruments to drive it, but the reality is, too much of the narrative is about the cost of the transition, not about the cost of not transitioning and the opportunities.'