Events

Indexing capital requirements on climate : What impacts can be expected ?

- By : 🕯️ Obituary for Julie Evain 

Monday 18th October from 9am to 10am

Increasing the contribution of banks is the major issue that I4CE proposed to address in a study published in September 2021.

 

The objective is to overcome the classic opposition between the supporters of a Green Supporting Factor (for prudential relief due to the lower risk of green assets) and of a Penalizing Factor (to penalize activities that emit high CO2 levels because they are more exposed to transition risks).

 

By determining the impacts of these two approaches on project financing, on the internal profitability of banks, and on credit growth or contraction, I4CE has demonstrated that prudential tools are perhaps a response to a risk problem, but they do not sufficiently respond to the challenges of the transition. Apart from the scheduled exit from fossil fuel activities for which a strong and localized penalizing factor may be possible, the other impacts on the transition of these devices are negligible or even counterproductive.

 

Moderation by :

 

  • Pauline Becquey, Managing Director of Finance for Tomorrow, will moderate this exchange;
  • Julie Evain, Reserach fellows, I4CE, will present the highlights of the study;
  • Pierre Monnin, Senior Fellow, Council on Economic Policies, will then react.

 

A question / answer period was planned for the second part of the webinar.This webinar was held in English.

18 Oct 2021

Indexing capital requirements on climate : What impacts can be expected ?

I4CE Contacts
To learn more
  • 12/12/2025 Blog post Foreword of the week
    Paris +10: France and Europe must step up on climate – to protect our security, sovereignty, competitiveness, and public finances

    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. 

  • 12/11/2025 Blog post
    Climate finance at COP30: Progress, pitfalls, persistent challenges and the path ahead

    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.  

  • 12/05/2025 Foreword of the week
    Maintaining the 2035 target: Ensuring a viable future for Europe’s automotive industry

    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.

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !
Fermer