MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415620100 · doi:10.1186/s12992-026-01224-w

The Energy Transition and Export-Credit Agencies: Problems or Solutions for Planetary Health Equity?

2025· article· en· W4415620100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sharon Friel, Nicholas Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobalization and Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsFossil fuelRenewable energyEnergy transitionEquity (law)Environmental impact of the energy industryGreenhouse gasEnergy subsidiesInvestment (military)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fossil-fuel dependant energy systems are bad for human health, unequally distributed and environmentally destructive including as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Low- and middle-income countries are expected to account for the bulk of emissions growth in the coming decades. How the energy transition is supported in those countries will affect planetary health equity - the equitable enjoyment of good health in a stable earth system. Much of the health and climate-related finance research has focused on health-care systems adaptation and emissions reduction. Little attention has been paid by the health community to the role of public finance in the energy transition more broadly and what that means for planetary health equity. In this paper we examine the role of export credit agencies (ECAs) in creating an equitable global energy transition towards renewables and the implications for planetary health equity. ECAs rank among the leading public financial institutions in global energy investment. RESULTS: To characterize the topology of global energy finance networks, we examined lender-recipient investment ties and calculated structural metrics that enabled comparison of the integration, fragmentation, and relational patterns of fossil fuel and clean-energy finance networks. Using these network analysis methods, we found that fossil fuel investments dominate ECAs' energy finance globally, with cumulative support 12 times larger than renewable energy by 2021. Five countries (Canada, China, Japan, South Korea and US) account for 84% of fossil fuel support. The flow of clean-energy finance from high-income to low- and middle-income countries remains limited, with most investments in renewable energy occurring between high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: The continuation of current ECA practices risk widening global inequities in the energy transition, drive greenhouse gas emissions, and ultimately contribute to climate-related death and disease. To enable planetary health equity, ECAs must cease all new fossil fuel project financing; expand policies to increase clean energy exports to developing nations; simplify processes for clean-energy enterprises; and expand ECAs' role in blended finance for development. Health actors must engage in this area of public finance to ensure funding decisions do not exacerbate global health and planetary health inequities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobalization and HealthSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207