Publications

In the run up to the publication of the European Commission’s proposals for an automotive package on 10 December, car manufactures have stepped up the calls to relax the CO2 standards and the 2035 phase-out of new combustion-engine vehicles by including some flexibilities. They highlight the challenges the industry has faced in recent years, growing competitive pressure from China, and insufficient demand for electric vehicles in Europe as reasons for the sector needing more time for the transition required to meet the targets.

Recently, car manufacturers have been calling for a relaxation of CO2 emission standards for cars and vans and the 2035 phase-out target for new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, by including some flexibilities. They point in particular to the crisis the industry has faced in recent years, growing competitive pressure from China, and insufficient demand for electric vehicles (EVs) in Europe, as reasons for the sector needing more time for the transition required to meet the targets. As the European Commission (EC) prepares to publish its package for the automotive industry, including a revision of CO₂ standards for cars and vans, this blogpost examines the realities behind the difficulties currently faced by car manufacturers and the consequences of relaxing and postponing the planned EU regulations for this sector. 

With the aim to reduce its CO2 emissions and costly fossil-fuel imports, in 2022 the European Parliament adopted a rule that, from 2035, all new vehicles must be zero-emission, which essentially means that they must be electric. However, this rule is now being questioned, with car manufacturers requesting that it be revised to allow plug-in […]

COP30 concluded with an agreement, proving that multilateralism is still alive. However, the results are underwhelming: no push to transition away from fossil fuels, no decision on deforestation, and mixed outcomes on adaptation metrics.  On climate finance, Belém failed to shift from ambition to implementation. Negotiations quickly drifted back to a battle on yet another high-level quantitative target. The decision to triple adaptation funding by 2035 disappointed many, with its distant time horizon, lack of baseline and non-binding wording. COP30 also missed the opportunity to engage with – and build consensus around – concrete measures outlined in the Baku to Belém roadmap to get to $1.3 trillion. Instead, it defaulted to launching new processes – a work programme on climate finance and a ministerial roundtable on the NCQG.  

Climate change does not conform to business, political or supervisory regime cycles– its adverse long-term impacts lie beyond such horizons. Ten years ago, when Mark Carney highlighted this paradox in his landmark Tragedy of the Horizons speech, climate change was not considered a financial stability risk. Today, European supervisory stress tests estimate up to €638 billion in banking losses over 8 years, while the European Central Bank (ECB) reveals that over 90% of eurozone banks face climate and environmental risks. A key question arises: Is the supervisors’ primary focus on greening the financial system sufficient in the face of rising risks, especially stranded assets? 

The climate and development finance gap is large and widening, as Official Development Assistance (ODA) declines and needs multiply. With shrinking fiscal space in vulnerable countries, solidarity levies are gaining attention as a predictable source of international finance. Launched at COP28 by Barbados, France, and Kenya, the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force (GSLTF) is the main initiative in this space.

National Public Banks (NPBs) and Subnational Public Financial Institutions (SPFIs), including development banks and agencies as well as climate and green funds at the subnational level, play an increasingly vital role in financing climate action and the just transition. While national governments provide frameworks aligned with nationally determined contributions (NDCs), actual implementation occurs largely at the subnational level, which currently lacks sufficient funding. SPFIs can work as financial intermediaries, as they not only understand local needs and have stronger ties with local governments and businesses, but also access much larger volumes of capital from more diverse sources. 

"What agreement will the negotiators reach?” is the question that is usually on climate practitioners’ minds at this time of the year. However, this time, it is a new impetus that is needed, not another agreement. 10 years after the Paris Agreement, the Brazilian COP30 presidency has rightly shifted the focus to execution, making this edition “the implementation COP.” On financing, the objectives set at COP29 are clear: developing countries should receive $300 billion per year by 2035 from developed countries (NCQG), and mobilise $1.3 trillion per year from all actors. The newly published "Baku to Belém" roadmap proposes solutions to meet the targets. We now have objectives and a list of (theoretical) means to achieve them. How do we move to implementation? 

Nearly a decade has passed since the Paris Agreement elevated finance to the heart of the climate agenda, embedding in Article 2.1(c) the ambitious goal of aligning global financial flows with low-emission, climate-resilient development. But for all the talk of “shifting the trillions,” we remain far from course. 

Financial institutions, including banking and funding institutions, have a pivotal role to play in driving low-emissions and climate-resilient development. They need to adopt practices that support climate mainstreaming in local financial systems, from committing to climate strategies to improving their climate performance. Support from development finance institutions often proves to be an enabling or even a crucial factor.

We were proud to contribute to the inaugural Paris Climate & Nature Week hosted by Sciences Po from 27 to 29 October, marking the 10 years of the Paris Agreement. I4CE weighed in on some of our core topics– lessons learnt over the past decade of climate action which can accelerate the  transition; the links between climate and development finance; as well as adaptation and the cost of inaction.

Ten years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, what progress has been made to make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development (the ambition set out in Article 2.1(c) of the Agreement)? And what is needed going forward? Although we still lack a comprehensive assessment of progress, this article draws on existing analysis of what can help align financial flows and examines the efforts made by governments and the financial sector to this end. It highlights a development in the debate towards a country-driven approach and a focus on real investment needs. It explores ways to overcome existing barriers to action despite a challenging global context. The article advocates that Article 2.1(c) should be viewed not as a stand-alone provision, but as something that requires full implementation of all the provisions of the Paris Agreement. It also calls for a shift from a target-focused to an action-focused finance agenda and discusses how the COP30 in Belém can contribute to this.

Cette étude s’inscrit dans la continuité des travaux d’I4CE engagés depuis plusieurs années sur la qualification et la quantification des besoins et des moyens pour l’adaptation en France. Elle propose une vision d’ensemble de ce que l’on peut dire à date sur ces aspects, basée sur le suivi et l’analyse d’une quinzaine de domaines d’action publique concernés par le changement climatique. Alors que l'adaptation est souvent un grand oublié des PLF, ce rapport apporte des éléments sur l’effort consenti aujourd’hui, les besoins identifiés pour demain et les modalités de répartition des coûts.

One year ago, Mario Draghi warned that Europe was becalmed in treacherous waters. Fading competitiveness, trade disputes to east and west, and a growing political mutiny against the green transition make the way forward hard to navigate. This year, however, the EU has begun to find its bearings – guided by the Competitiveness Compass, with decarbonisation as the north star of the Clean Industrial Deal.

Europe is levelling up its industrial policy. From the Clean Industrial Deal to proposals for a more flexible EU budget, the Commission signals new ambition to build scale in strategic cleantech sectors and strengthen Europe’s decarbonising industrial base. Yet this firepower risks losing impact if spread too thinly. Limited resources demand sharper focus. As the Draghi Report made clear, Europe must act strategically: understand its industrial strengths and vulnerabilities, prioritise the sectors that matter most, and align funds, regulation, and institutional capacity accordingly. 

This year marks an important milestone for I4CE: we are celebrating a decade of commitment to the climate economics. We would like to thank our partners who agree to say a few words at the occasion of this anniversary.  

This year marks an important milestone for I4CE: we are celebrating our 10-year anniversary. Setting sails the year the Paris Agreement was adopted, our mission was clear from the outset: to promote effective, efficient and fair policies for the climate transition.  Since then, we have focused our economic analysis on public policies with an emphasis on assessing the investment needs and policy options for the transition. Our ambition has been to advance the public debate on climate with facts and figures, promoting long-term investment plans as an essential tool to turn political ambitions into reality. Over the years, we have applied this approach to a growing number of policy areas and expanded our geographical scope from France to Europe and internationally.

The next long term EU budget will take us through the 2030 goal posts, by when GHG emissions should be down by 55%. It will also lay the groundwork for investing in a climate-neutral future for the continent towards the yet-to-be agreed objectives for 2040. So, when the European Commission presented its proposal for a €2 trillion multiannual financial framework (MFF) just before the summer break, there was good reason to carefully study the details from the perspective of closing the EU’s climate investment deficit.  

Europe is making progress on the clean transition, but the pace is too slow across several parametres. ECNO’s analysis is structured around 13 building blocks of the transition, tracking changes in the six-year trend for nearly 150 indicators and also the expected impact of policies – a new addition to this year’s report. In the 2025 edition, we also analysed the changes through the lens of broader EU objectives, namely competitiveness, resilience, and citizens’ well-being. 

In July, Commission President von der Leyen announced a €2 trillion EU budget fit “for a new era,” set to launch for a seven-year period in 2028. As EU-watchers in Brussels and beyond scrambled to digest the reams of legislative proposals that followed this headline-grabbing announcement, much in the detail should give pause – especially from the perspective of closing the EU’s climate investment deficit.