The post-2025 conjuncture poses numerous challenges for understanding the dynamic “positions” of climate finance that Bryant and Webber identify. I focus on the difficulty of distinguishing between financial institutions’ public performances and actual practices, particularly as anti-ESG political pressures incentivize strategic distance between the two. I argue for the importance of expanding our methodological toolkit and centering different literal and figurative locations of climate finance.
Leigh Johnson (Fri,) studied this question.