03. Building the climate rationale

Lecture quiz

Quiz - Building the climate rationale

Developing Bankable Climate Finance Proposals. Unlimited attempts, no timer, and one pass mark for the whole platform - applied the same way to the 2 written questions below the multiple choice.

4 questionsPass mark 70%No results recorded+ 2 written questions

Questions

4

70% to pass

Attempts

-

no figures in this prototype

Pass rate

-

no figures yet

Average score

-

no figures yet

Questions

The correct answer and its explanation are shown together here so you can check them at a glance - neither is ever shown to a learner attempting the quiz, right or wrong.

  1. 1. Why include a downside case in a financial model?

    • It is a mandatory annex in every template
    • Appraisers will find it anyway, and naming it builds credibilityCorrect
    • It lowers the interest rate offered
    • It transfers liability to the funder

    Stating the point at which a project stops being viable is a signal of a model worth trusting on everything else.

  2. 2. What makes a project 'bankable' rather than simply worthwhile?

    • It has government backing
    • It produces a measurable return or saving a funder can point toCorrect
    • It is technically innovative
    • It has no environmental impact

    A project can be entirely worth doing and still not be bankable if nothing about it produces a measurable return a funder can point to.

  3. 3. A revenue-generating project pitched only for grant funding is making what mistake?

    • Asking for too much money
    • Wasting the strongest thing the project hasCorrect
    • Underestimating construction costs
    • Ignoring the climate rationale

    Matching the finance type to a project's actual cash flow is decided before the proposal is drafted - a revenue-generating project belongs with a different source.

  4. 4. What does a strong climate rationale have to do?

    • Cite as many co-benefits as possible
    • Connect the intervention to a climate outcome by steps someone can checkCorrect
    • Avoid mentioning cost
    • Focus only on emissions reduced

    A rationale that asserts a benefit without a checkable chain of steps does not survive review; each link has to be something a reader can follow and dispute.

Written questions

Optional - a lecture is complete without any. Add two-to-three sentence explanation questions where the multiple-choice quiz cannot tell whether an idea actually landed - as soon as one exists, a learner must pass it at 70%, the same platform-wide mark as the quiz, before the next lecture opens.

  1. 1. In two or three sentences: what does a climate rationale have to do that a bare assertion of benefit does not?

    chainstepscheckassert

    2 of 4 have to appear to pass.

    Model answer: A climate rationale has to connect an intervention to a climate outcome through a chain of steps someone else can check, not simply assert. A claimed benefit with no checkable chain does not survive review.

  2. 2. In two or three sentences: what is the 'increment' a climate rationale actually has to defend, for a project that would have happened anyway?

    incrementbeyondregardlessspecifically

    2 of 4 have to appear to pass.

    Model answer: A project is not disqualified for being worth doing on its own merits. The rationale has to defend the increment - what the finance specifically buys beyond what would have happened regardless.