Publications

The implementation of carbon farming practices on European farms and in European forests is a lever for achieving carbon neutrality, but also for farm resilience, the adaptation of forest stands to climate change and for contributing to our strategic independence. Certifying and financing low-carbon practices is the objective of the CRCF (Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming) regulation, which will come into effect in 2026. Now seems the right time to draw lessons from six years of experience with a similar standard in France: the “Label Bas-Carbone” (Low Carbon Label - LBC). The results show that striking a balance between scientific rigour and accessibility for stakeholders has led to the development of a substantial range of projects. However, the real challenge is to build sufficient and appropriate demand to finance the projects. There is no miracle solution, but complementary financing channels may emerge. 

The year ahead promises to be electric. In a highly unpredictable geopolitical context, the European Union must balance its commitment to the long-term goals of climate neutrality and the immediate attention to security and competitiveness concerns. This puts electrification high on the agenda in Brussels. First, the Grids Package, presented in December 2025, provides for a more centralised approach to planning and is expected to be adopted by the Council in June. Second, before the summer, the Commission intends to present an Electrification Action Plan, which will focus on lowering prices and reinforcing demand. 

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.  

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? 

"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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.