Publications

How distant December 12, 2015 now seems. All delegations at COP21 had then rallied behind Laurent Fabius’s little green hammer. Ten years later, the trend is closer to backlash. Climate action is now often portrayed in the public debate as too costly, because it requires major investment. Ineffective, since our share of global emissions is small. Unfair, because it cuts into purchasing power. Too divisive, supported only by part of the electorate. Too late, since keeping the planet below +2°C of warming now seems out of reach. Arguments that are partly true—yet require substantial nuance. 

A few weeks ago, COP30 concluded in Belém with all parties agreeing on a “global mobilization” (or mutirão) against climate change, proving that multilateralism remains a viable path for action, despite strong geopolitical and economic headwinds. However, Belém delivered underwhelming results: no roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels –despite a powerful push from President Lula, rallying over 80 countries, a lack of concrete decisions on deforestation –disappointing for an “Amazon COP”, and mixed results on the global goal on adaptation, among other outcomes.  

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? 

"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.

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.

With the dust settling from COP29's hard-fought negotiations on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), attention is shifting to how the climate finance goal will be met. The challenge is how to scale up financing for increasingly connected priorities in a challenging landscape of debt stress and cuts in official development assistance.

The 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) in Seville represents a milestone for delivering on development (including climate action) goals, a decade after the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. The “Seville Commitment” was adopted on June 30th, albeit in the absence of the United States – demonstrating that widespread support remains for a comprehensive package to finance development. However, the outcome also embodies the growing chasm between high-level commitments and the reality of financing for development and climate action on the ground. Recent research by I4CE attempts to bridge this gap on two crucial issues. 

Climate negotiations are taking place next week in Bonn, with finance once again high on the agenda. COP 29 ended last year with a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) –revised climate finance target to replace the USD 100 billion goal. The NCQG decision put forward a commitment by developed countries to lead in providing USD 300 billion per year by 2035 for developing countries, as well as a proposal to work on a roadmap to scale up climate finance for developing countries to reach a level closer to the estimated needs –the ‘Baku to Belem Roadmap to 1.3T’ (USD 1.3 trillion). The latter must be delivered at the end of the year at COP 30, and strong efforts are being put in the task by the Brazilian Presidency.

We are witnessing a withdrawal of commitments to climate action. In the US, President Donald Trump does not hide his hostility to what he calls the ‘climate hoax’. In Europe and in France, new narratives around competitiveness, strategic autonomy and security are gaining ground, reflecting a new political reality. If there is still a broad consensus on the long-term objective of climate neutrality, how to get there is increasingly challenged, generating uncertainty. The scarcity of fiscal resources impacts the willingness to embark on the green transition.

On his first day in office, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the elimination of the consumer carbon tax, in response to political pressures rather than evidence-based concerns about its effectiveness or impact on affordability. The tax had played a crucial role in reducing the country’s GHG emissions, and along with other carbon pricing policies, was expected to contribute nearly half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030. Additionally, the majority of revenues collected were redistributed to citizens, protecting vulnerable households. Thus, without alternative policies to compensate, eliminating the tax could slow emissions reductions and increase inflationary pressure, particularly for low- and middle-income families who benefited financially from the Canada Carbon Rebate funded by the tax. 

Next week, representatives of public development banks and their stakeholders will gather in Cape Town for the 5th Finance in Common Summit (FiCS), to discuss how public development banks can align all their activities with the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement, and the Global Biodiversity Framework. As the global network of public development banks, Finance in Common represents about 10% of total global development investments each year, which must all align with sustainable development pathways. This year, the discussions at FiCS will take place while South Africa hosts the first meeting of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, with a focus on solidarity, equality, and sustainability.

The COP29 in Baku was supposed to breathe new life into North-South climate cooperation through the negotiation of the new NCQG financing target. Instead, confrontational negotiations produced a half-hearted agreement, and the onerous task of charting a path to bridge the resource gap before the next COP.

This coming Monday will see the start of COP29 – formally the 29th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in Baku, Azerbaijan. The edition is nicknamed “the finance COP” and is important on more than one account, not least as Trump's victory likely leads to a change of course for the US on climate commitment. The volume and structure of the finance mobilised to support developing countries to transition to low-emission and climate-resilient economies tops the agenda.

This autumn’s busy negotiation agendas, offer a window of opportunity to move the reform of the international climate finance architecture (IFA) up one level. This acceleration is urgent if we want to keep pace with the dramatic change in scale needed to finance the climate transition.  In 2023, developed countries announced that they had - for the first time since 2009 - achieved their USD 100bn/year climate finance target to support climate action in developing countries. Just two years later, this target is already obsolete, with needs for emerging and developing economies (excluding China) estimated at around USD 2.4 trillion per year by 2030. 

Tense climate negotiations just ended in Bonn with limited progress on finance and the revised climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. During the opening ceremony of the sixtieth sessions of the subsidiary bodies (SB 60) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Simon Stiell –Executive Secretary– highlighted the need to “make serious progress on finance, the great enabler of climate action” and to aim for bolder, broader and inclusive third generation Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs 3.0) that “can serve as blueprints to propel economies and societies forward and drive more resilience”.

Last month, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Simon Stiell, stressed how important this and next year are for the achievement of the Paris Agreement and called for “a quantum leap in climate finance” ahead of the Spring Meetings of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund. Indeed, with emissions required to peak before 2025, our window of opportunity is rapidly closing to keep 1.5°C within reach. More and better finance is urgently needed. Carbon pricing policies and their revenues are part of the tools available that can help fill the climate finance gap.