Abstract
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
