Climate Pragmatism in a Fragmented World

Glimmers of what “worst” might look like are coming into view. The cost of hurricanes, severe thunderstorms and floods amplified by warming temperatures has topped USD 100 billion for five years running.¹  Modeling by MSCI finds that within the USD 9 trillion U.S. market for mortgage-backed securities, properties exposed to high hazard-loss ratios are lagging in home price appreciation and losing insurance policy renewals at twice the rate as those in lower-risk areas.

Investors, lenders, insurers and companies alike now seek to integrate risk analytics that capture location data in geospatial detail. Knowing which facilities face which hazards across potentially millions of assets in a portfolio is essential for modeling financial impacts under multiple climate scenarios.

Investors have traditionally viewed their geographic exposures based on companies’ headquarters or major revenue segments, which cluster in economic hubs. Yet as the map below shows, physical risk can lie anywhere — along supply routes or at sites of production, storage and logistics.

Source: MSCI ESG Research, data as of March 31, 2025, based on MSCI Geospatial Asset Intelligence. For each of the 14 physical hazards covered by MSCI Climate Risk Center's Physical Risk model, we assess the hazard exposure of over 2M corporate asset locations. The map highlights cities that exhibit exposure to physical hazards in the top quartile compared to the reference dataset (>= 75) for pluvial flooding, fluvial flooding, coastal flooding, tropical cyclones, extreme heat and wildfire.

Preparing for the worst does not mean giving up on accelerating decarbonization. In fact, assets in transition funds, including strategies that invest in emissions-intensive sectors, rose 20% last year and now account for nearly 40% of publicly listed climate funds.

The shift to financing the harder-to-decarbonize parts of the economy is a sign that investors have become more targeted with maximizing the impact of their climate capital, both in reducing emissions levels and pursuing transition-focused opportunities.

Currently the world’s listed companies are on track to overshoot their collective carbon budget for staying under the Paris Agreement goal within the next two years, aligning with a warming trajectory of about 2.7°C (5.04°F) above preindustrial levels based on their targets and emissions trajectories.

The aggregate temperature masks divergence. Even before the flare-up of trade tensions, differences in national climate policies drove investors to differentiate the pace and scope of energy transition investment opportunities among countries and sectors.

As geopolitical shifts further fragment markets’ transition trajectories, investors are seeking indicators that help them navigate differences in transition risks and opportunities while financing decarbonization in critical sectors of the economy. Those include a mosaic of market factors such as policy incentives and the availability of commercially feasible technologies for different sectors, as well as company-specific factors to gauge companies’ readiness for the transition.

Russia and Iran not shown because the securities of companies listed there are not included in the MSCI ACWI IMI. Source: MSCI ESG Research, data as of March 31, 2025.

Somewhere between aiming for the best and preparing for the worst is an emerging pragmatism about a growing investment opportunity in serving the inevitable need for households, businesses and communities to prepare for, adapt to, and recover from rising physical impacts. Some areas in Asia, for example, are warming at triple the global average, endangering the health of vast urban populations.