This arti­cle inves­ti­ga­tes the deter­mi­nants of cli­ma­te finan­ce for infras­truc­tu­re, focu­sing on whether allo­ca­ti­ons reflect reci­pi­ent needs, merits, or donor and inves­tors      inte­rests. Whi­le pri­or rese­ar­ch has mainly exa­mi­ned aggre­ga­te flows, this study deve­lops a sec­to­ral pers­pec­ti­ve on trans­port, energy, and water and sani­ta­ti­on, inte­gra­ting two infras­truc­tu­re-rela­ted deter­mi­nants: the pro­fi­ta­bi­lity of infras­truc­tu­re invest­ments and sec­tor-spe­ci­fic vul­ne­ra­bi­li­ti­es. Using dyna­mic panel models with Sys­tem GMM cove­ring 2000–2022, the analy­sis disag­gre­ga­tes flows by cli­ma­te the­me (mitigation/adaptation) and finan­ci­al ins­tru­ment (grants/debt). Results show that pro­fi­ta­bi­lity, pro­xi­ed by pri­va­te par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in infras­truc­tu­re, is con­sis­ten­tly asso­ci­a­ted with higher cli­ma­te finan­ce, espe­ci­ally in debt-based flows and miti­ga­ti­on pro­jects. Vul­ne­ra­bi­lity plays a more limi­ted role, emer­ging pri­ma­rily in grant allo­ca­ti­ons and selec­ted sec­tors. Con­ven­ti­o­nal deter­mi­nants such as popu­la­ti­on, offi­ci­al deve­lop­ment assis­tan­ce (ODA) per capi­ta, and extre­me poli­ti­cal events also mat­ter. The­se fin­dings high­light ten­si­ons betwe­en return and equa­lity, sug­ges­ting that cur­rent allo­ca­ti­on pat­terns risk rein­for­cing an “unjust” gre­en tran­si­ti­on unless vul­ne­ra­bi­lity is more sys­te­ma­ti­cally prioritized.

KEYWORDS: infras­truc­tu­re; cli­ma­te finan­ce; vul­ne­ra­bi­lity; gre­en transition.