MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406931673 · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-55981-0

Quantifying the shift of public export finance from fossil fuels to renewable energy

2025· article· en· W4406931673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philipp Censkowsky, Paul Waidelich, Igor Shishlov, Bjarne Steffen

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeStaatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und InnovationEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichEuropean Commission
KeywordsFossil fuelRenewable energyGreenhouse gasClimate FinanceBusinessPortfolioNatural resource economicsClimate changeFinanceProject financeClimate change mitigationEconomicsDeveloping countryEconomic growthEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By providing guarantees and direct lending, public export credit agencies (ECAs) de-risk and thus enable energy projects worldwide. Despite their importance for global greenhouse gas emission pathways, a systematic assessment of ECAs' role and financing patterns in the low-carbon energy transition is still needed. Using commercial transaction data, here we analyze 921 energy deals backed by ECAs from 31 OECD and non-OECD countries (excluding Canada) between 2013 and 2023. We find that while the share of renewables in global ECA energy commitments rose substantially between 2013 and 2023, ECAs remain heavily involved in the fossil fuel sector, with support varying substantially across technologies, value chain stages, and countries. Portfolio 'greening' is primarily driven by members of the E3F climate club, impacting deal financing structures and shifting finance flows towards high-income countries. Our results call for reconsidering ECA mandates and strengthening international climate-related cooperation in export finance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.151 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207