Connect with us

Finance

Climate finance billions at stake at COP29

Published

on

Climate finance billions at stake at COP29

Rich nations will be under pressure at this month’s UN COP29 conference to substantially increase the amount of money they give to poorer countries for climate action.

But there is deep disagreement over how much is needed, who should pay and what should be covered, ensuring that “climate finance” will top the agenda at COP29 in Baku.

– What is climate finance? –

It is the buzzword in this year’s negotiations, which run from November 11 to 22, but there is not one agreed definition of climate finance.

In general terms, it is money spent in a manner “consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”, as per phrasing used in the Paris Agreement.

Advertisement

That includes government or private money for clean energy like solar and wind, technology like electric vehicles, or adaptation measures like dykes to hold back rising seas.

But could a subsidy for a new water-efficient hotel, for example, be counted? It is not something the COP summits have addressed directly.

At the annual UN negotiations, climate finance has come to refer to the difficulties the developing world faces getting the money it needs to prepare for global warming.

– Who pays? –

Under a 1992 UN accord, a handful of rich countries most responsible for global warming were obligated to provide finance.

Advertisement

In 2009, the United States, the European Union, Japan, Britain, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand and Australia agreed to pay $100 billion per year by 2020.

They only achieved this for the first time in 2022. The delay eroded trust and fuelled accusations that rich countries were shirking their responsibility.

At COP29, nearly 200 nations are expected to agree on a new finance goal beyond 2025.

India has called for $1 trillion a year and some other proposals go higher, but countries on the hook want other major economies to chip in.

They argue times have changed and the big industrialised nations of the early 1990s represent just 30 percent of historic greenhouse gas emissions today.

Advertisement

In particular, there is a push for China — the world’s largest polluter today — and the oil-rich Gulf countries to pay. They do not accept this proposal.

– What’s being negotiated? –

Experts commissioned by the UN estimate that developing countries, excluding China, will need $2.4 trillion per year by 2030.

But the line between climate finance, foreign aid and private capital is often blurred and campaigners are pushing for clearer terms that specify where money comes from, and in what form.

In an October letter to governments, dozens of activist, environment and scientific groups called on rich nations to pay developing countries $1 trillion a year in three clear categories.

Advertisement

Some $300 billion would be government money for reducing planet-heating emissions, $300 billion for adaptation measures and $400 billion for disaster relief known as “loss and damage” funds.

The signatories said all the money should be grants, seeking to redress the provision of loans as climate finance that poorer countries say compounds their debt woes.

Developed countries do not want money for “loss and damage” included under any new climate finance pact reached at COP29.

– Where will they find the money? –

Today, most climate finance aid goes through development banks or funds co-managed with the countries concerned, such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility.

Advertisement

Campaigners are very critical of the $100 billion pledge because two-thirds of the money was given as loans, not grants.

Even revised upwards, it is likely any new pledge from governments will fall well short of what is needed.

But this commitment is viewed as highly symbolic nonetheless, and crucial to unlocking other sources of money, namely private capital.

Financial diplomacy also plays out at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the G20, where this year’s host Brazil wants to craft a global tax on billionaires.

The idea of new global taxes, for example on aviation or maritime transport, is also supported by France, Kenya and Barbados, with the backing of UN chief Antonio Guterres.

Advertisement

Redirecting fossil fuel subsidies towards clean energy or wiping the debt of poor countries in exchange for climate investments are also among the options.

COP29 host Azerbaijan, meanwhile, has asked fossil fuel producers to contribute to a new fund that would channel money to developing countries.

bl-np/rlp/rsc

Finance

Incredible year-long spending experiment exposes mistakes you’re probably making

Published

on

Incredible year-long spending experiment exposes mistakes you’re probably making
The forthcoming book follows her journey of one year without buying anything new and how it changed her relationship with money and her self-worth. (Source: Emma Edwards/Instagram)

Financial behaviour specialist Emma Edwards, founder of The Broke Generation, is sharing her radical personal finance experiment: a whole year without buying a single item of clothing.

No new outfits, no second-hand finds, not even rentals. What began as a no-buy challenge soon became a powerful lesson in self-worth, resilience, and the surprising freedom of living with less.

In the exclusive extract below, Emma shares the six buying patterns we get trapped into thinking we actually need.

RELATED

The impact of our consumption habits creates an environment where we’re cornered from every angle. We have a collection of clothes that don’t work together, don’t make us feel good and don’t allow us to express ourselves the way we want to, which leaves us looking externally for what we’re not getting. The problem is, when we look externally, we buy more and more of the same.

Advertisement

Unravelling that idea of what can happen when we’re in a ‘yes’ state, a state of openness to consumption even though our intentions might suggest otherwise, got me curious about some of the unhelpful buying cycles I’d been stuck in. I really leaned into understanding how I ended up with the wardrobe I currently had, and what I could learn from the mistakes I made over and over again.

I realised that if I could establish the mistakes I was making and the ways I was buying the wrong things, I’d stop feeling compelled to buy more and more over time. Here are some of the patterns I uncovered in my wardrobe, and that I’ve seen in others’ too.

Once I liked something in one colour (often black), I’d giddily run out and buy it in another colour, thinking I was making some kind of ultra-smart decision and capitalising on what I loved. I’m going to give you a piece of advice now that I hope you’ll remember for many years. If you ever utter the words ‘I’m going to go and get this in another colour’ – run. It’s a trap. You probably won’t like the other colour, and it’ll just sit in your wardrobe and collect dust.

There are certain things in my wardrobe that I struggled to wear confidently outside of one specific outfit silo. Usually, this is a sure-fire sign that I’d bought it in a very specific context, like copying or replicating an outfit I’d seen someone else wear.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Finance

Financing Sports’ Future: Private Credit Steps Into the Arena

Published

on

Financing Sports’ Future: Private Credit Steps Into the Arena

Today’s guest column is by Joseph Glatt, co-chair of the global Private Credit Group at Paul, Weiss.

The business of sports has evolved into one of the most sophisticated capital markets in the world. Franchises that once relied on wealthy patrons now operate as global enterprises with complex balance sheets, diversified revenue streams and brand portfolios that span continents. Behind the scenes, a quiet transformation is taking place. Private credit has become the financing engine powering the next phase of the industry’s growth.

For decades, the financial architecture of sports was narrow. Teams depended on a mix of owner equity, bank loans and broadcast advances. That model worked when sports was seasonal, media rights were centralized, and stadiums were used a few dozen times a year.

Today the business is more complicated. Digital engagement has replaced ticket sales as the primary growth driver, broadcast rights are fragmented across platforms, and venues have become year-round entertainment ecosystems. Private credit brings structure, speed and sophistication to a business that is increasingly complex and ever-evolving.

The appeal is obvious. Sports franchises have matured from passion assets into performance assets. Media rights, sponsorships, premium seating, licensing and real estate all provide recurring cash flows—a profile that looks less like entertainment and more like infrastructure. For credit investors searching for yield with tangible downside protection, it’s a natural fit.

Advertisement

What distinguishes the current wave of sports lending is its focus on assets. Lenders are financing discrete pieces of the ecosystem rather than entire teams—broadcast receivables, naming rights, arena redevelopment or ancillary real estate. A stadium backed by long-term contracts and naming agreements can support senior debt that behaves much like project finance. The economics are stable, the security is visible, and the exposure is detached from game outcomes. It’s a structural rather than sentimental approach to sports finance.

This shift has attracted institutional capital on a scale that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Pension funds, insurers and global asset managers now view sports as a legitimate component of their private credit portfolios. The logic is straightforward. The sector offers infrastructure-like cash flows with entertainment-driven growth. European football clubs have refinanced legacy debt with private credit facilities. North American franchises have used direct lending to fund media rights and working-capital needs. Even emerging leagues and women’s sports organizations are turning to private lenders to build facilities and extend reach. The flow of capital is both a cause and a consequence of the sector’s institutionalization.

The sophistication of these transactions reflects a growing recognition that sports carries unique risks. Revenues can fluctuate with team performance or media cycles, and valuations can move with public sentiment.

The best lenders manage this through structure rather than pricing. Deals often include covenants tied to attendance, sponsorship renewals or season-ticket deposits. Some of them link pricing to revenue performance or secure cross-collateralization between real estate and media income. The emphasis is on aligning capital with the rhythm of the underlying business, not imposing a one-size-fits-all template.

The opportunity extends beyond the professional leagues that dominate headlines. Collegiate athletics, youth sports and ancillary service providers are entering a commercial era of their own.

Advertisement

The legalization of name, image and likeness rights has turned college programs into fully commercial enterprises that now require working capital, facilities financing and sponsorship advances. Private lenders can design structures suited to that environment—secured against receivables, ticket income or local partnerships—where traditional financing models fall short.

Youth and amateur sports tell a similar story. The sector generates tens of billions of dollars in annual spending, yet capital formation remains fragmented. Financing of complexes, tournaments and training facilities have become scalable credit opportunities, driven by durable demand rather than speculation.

Real estate has also become inseparable from the business of sports. Stadiums are now anchors of mixed-use developments that include hotels, retail and housing. Teams are monetizing their brands across hospitality, content and data ventures. That convergence between physical and intangible assets creates a dual source of collateral. A stadium’s concrete and steel can be valued like infrastructure, while its media contracts and licensing revenue resemble corporate cash flows. Private credit thrives in precisely this intersection, where structure can integrate both sides of the balance sheet.

This new market is maturing quickly. The challenge now is discipline. Not every team or league deserves institutional credit. The fundamentals must be right: diversified revenue, credible governance and transparent capital structures. The most capable lenders operate more like strategic partners than passive financiers. They help management teams optimize balance sheets, monetize non-core assets and think creatively about liquidity. The value in these relationships lies in partnership, not just pricing.

Looking ahead, the next decade of sports capital will likely involve consolidation and securitization. Portfolios of sports-backed loans may be packaged into rated vehicles, widening access to institutional investors. Cross-border ownership will further globalize the ecosystem, blending European clubs, American franchises and Middle Eastern sovereign funds into a single capital network. That will require not just financial innovation but also regulatory fluency and geopolitical awareness.

Advertisement

Private credit’s entry into sports is not a passing trend. It marks a structural evolution in how capital supports one of the world’s most powerful industries. Sports is now a platform business, and platform businesses demand flexible, sophisticated financing.

The investors leading this transformation think not in seasons but in cycles. They understand that the scoreboard measures only part of the game. The real competition is for capital efficiency, and those who master it will define the future of sports finance.

Glatt has over 25 years of experience in private practice and in-house at one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers, with a particular focus on complex transactions, strategic product innovation and capital raising for asset management firms and financial institutions.

Continue Reading

Finance

Mahopac to require personal financial literacy for high school graduation. Will NY follow?

Published

on

Mahopac to require personal financial literacy for high school graduation. Will NY follow?
play

Mahopac School District has become the first in New York to make personal financial literacy a graduation requirement, following a statewide push to strengthen personal financial education, according to the district.

The initiative, adopted by the Mahopac School Board on Nov. 18, aligns with a recent state Education Department proposal that would require personal finance instruction for all K-12 public school students.

Advertisement

Under the program, Seal of Financial Literacy, Mahopac students beginning with the Class of 2028 must complete a series of courses and a capstone project to graduate.   

The goal is to equip students with essential life skills at a time when financial decisions are increasingly complex and the cost of living continues to rise, Mahopac School District interim Superintendent Frank Miele said in a statement.

“Learning about money is the path to success for every student,” said Miele. “When our students understand saving, spending, investing, managing credit, and planning for their futures, we empower them to step into adulthood with confidence.”

Advertisement

What’s included in the Seal of Financial Literacy?

Starting with the Class of 2028, Mahopac graduates will be required to earn the Seal of Financial Literacy to receive their diplomas. Students in grades 8-12 will learn personal finance concepts through integrated units in courses such as English, math, social studies and economics. Seniors will complete a capstone project in which they develop a personal financial plan based on a post-high school scenario, whether attending college, entering the workforce, starting a business or serving in the miliary.

“It’s not radical for an 18-year-old to think about their long-term career goals and retirement plan,” said Tanner McCracken, a Mahopac School Board trustee who spearheaded the initiative. “Making personal financial literacy a graduation requirement has been a dream of mine since I was first elected to the school board at 20 years old. It’s something my generation is eager to learn, and I’m proud we got it done.”

More than 475 students in the Class of 2026 and 2027 will qualify for the program before it becomes a universal requirement in 2028, according to McCracken.

Advertisement

Local initiative precedes proposed statewide financial literacy mandate

Mahopac’s move comes as the state Education Department is considering adding personal finance education to graduation requirements.

Under the proposal, personal finance instruction would be required in middle and high schools starting in 2026-27 school year and expanded to elementary schools in 2027.

Schools would have flexibility to teach the material through integrated coursework, stand-alone classes or career and technical education programs. Instructional topics include budgeting and money management, credit and debt management, earning income, risk management and saving and investing.        

The proposal is currently open for public comment through Jan. 19, with the Board of Regents expected to make a decision in March.

Helu Wang covers economic growth, real estate and education for The Journal News/lohud and USA Today Network. Reach her at hwang@gannett.com and follow her @helu.wangny on Instagram.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending