Debaters at SXSW London Nature & Climate House. L to R: Marissa Drew, Fiona Howarth, Rhian-Mari … More
“What we are trying to get at is 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.” That is how Sophie Lambin, CEO of Kite Insights, tee’d up a friendly debate held at SXSW London last week in one of the more interesting sessions there.
SXSW London Street sign
Kite Insights curated it and moderated the “for” side of the debate. Stephen Dunbar-Johnson, president, International of The New York Times Company, moderated the “against” side. Held at the Nature & Climate House, presented by SXSW London partner Bellwethers Group on June 5th in the heart of London’s Shoreditch neighborhood, the “debate” including six expert debaters.
Debate moderators, Sophie Lambin and Stephen Dunbar-Johnson
Three experts argued on the “for” side that the green transition is financially viable today. They were: Rhian-Mari Thomas, Ph.D., CEO, Green Finance Institute; Marisa Drew, Chief Sustainability Officer, Standard Chartered Bank; and Fiona Howarth, Founder/CEO of Octopus Electric Vehicles.
The three experts arguing “against,” that is that the green transition is not financially viable today, were: Enrich Sahan, Business and Enterprise Lead at Doughnut Economics Action Lab; Chaitanya Kumar, Acting Head of Economic and Environmental Policy at the New Economics Foundation; and Kathy Baughman-McLeod, CEO of Climate Resilience For All.
UN Estimates Green Economy worth $10 trillion – 2022, press.un.org
“The UN estimates that globally the green economy could be worth $10.3 trillion by 2030, and the IEA (International Energy Agency) says it could be as much as $100 trillion by 2050. These are humongous numbers, but it’s not just about the numbers,” Dunbar-Johnson said, framing the discussion.
Here are the arguments the green transition is financially viable today, made by the “for” team (Note: Author is not providing clarifying facts, just the ones the teams presented):
Thomas summarized the “for” team’s position by saying, “We stand firmly in support of the motion. Yes, the green transition is financially viable. Indeed. Not only is it viable, it is economically strategic, it is socially imperative and it is already underway.”
Debate – Fiona Howarth
Howarth went so far as to call it, “the biggest financial opportunity that we have seen for decades, both for s companies and individuals.”
Then the “for” team quoted statistics including:
- $2.1 trillion – Has already been invested in green energy in 2024
- Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. Howarth added that wind and solar are not one-third the cost of new fossil fuel generation
- Market trends are shifting to green technologies becoming more mainstream and cost-competitive, they said, giving as examples electric vehicles and that battery prices are falling and close to achieving cost parity with petrol/diesel.
- Consumer demand for clean energy and sustainable products is up and growing. Drew cited that Formula E eco-friendly car racing now has 500 million fans as an example. (Note: Author found that Formula E has 374 million fans.)
- Inaction has a very high economic and social cost. For example, Thomas cited that reinsurer Swiss Re projects an 18% loss in global GDP by 2050 if climate change goes “unchecked” and that 100 million more people would end up in poverty, according to the World Bank.
Rhian-Mari Thomas headshot, from SXSW London website
Thomas explained that, “The upfront investments in clean energy, sustainable infrastructure, and low carbon technologies are not costs to be feared or to be avoided. They’re investments that shield us, that protect us from the catastrophic economic consequences of unchecked climate change. Trillions in disaster damages, food system breakdowns, migration crises and social unrest. Every fraction of a degree we prevent not only saves economies, but it saves lives.”
The “against” team was just as enthusiastic in the debate. Here are their arguments that the green transition is not financially viable at this time:
“It isn’t viable today. That’s what we are debating,” Erinch Sahan began the arguments for the “against” team. He removed his belt to dramatically illustrate that, “Financial markets have become a straitjacket. It’s wrapped around business, it’s wrapped around economic activities wrapped around governments, it’s wrapped around the private sector and it’s become a straitjacket on the transition itself.” He described it as “an economy that’s in service to finance,” which is inconsistent with the green economy.
Erinch Sahan
These are the facts the ”against” team cited:
- $6 trillion gap just for the energy transition alone, Sahan said.
- Financial markets demands for quarterly returns on investment (ROI), and 5-7 year exits make the transition impossible to finance.
- 3 investment funds – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – are major shareholders in almost all the S&P 500 companies, and in all the major oil and gas companies.
- Classification of natural gas as a green technology in 2022 by the EU Commission.
- Only £1 of every £20 goes to green technologies.*
- Big tech companies are scaling back their 2030 climate targets in favor of powering their AI servers, which require a huge amount of energy, including Microsoft.
- 6% of global GDP annually goes to subsidizing fossil fuels, Baughman-McLeod said.
- Real policy changes are needed to facilitate the transition and the current political dynamics, especially in the United States, makes that change untenable at this time.
These factoids “symbolize the fact that incumbent power and the political economy of the transition is still very much held by fossil fuel interests around the world,” Kumar said.
Screenshot – UN Women, how climate change & gender inequality are interconnected – April 2025
Baughman-McLeod added their view that the transition is not viable at this moment also because, “Externalities that are absolutely freed while shareholders and companies take home profit. Biodiversity is lost, children are working in mines. We have sweatshops, we have methane and carbon pollution pumping out, it’s free, and the shareholders take the money and everyone else gets the short end of the stick. (This is) the market we have, not necessarily the market we wish to have.”
“Externalities” also include the impact on women, she emphasized, who often suffer miscarriages, lost wages, and poor health as a result of climate-exacerbated conditions.
Which side made the best argument in your view?
*Note: This took place in the U.K. so some experts quoted in US dollars and others in British pounds.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanmichelson2/2025/06/17/is-the-green-transition-financially-viable-today-a-debate-at-sxsw-london/