Massive financing of the energy transition in schools, hospitals
and other public buildings.

How central banks can contribute to staying below the 2°C benchmark by purchasing Green Climate Bonds.

Novel ideas how to spend climate finance in a way that reduces emissions and at the same time promotes recipients’ immediate development objectives are required. In this short commentary, we propose to regard climate finance in the broader context of sustainable development.

Most people hate finance, viewing it as the epitome of irresponsibility and greed. But, even after causing a once-in-a-century recession and unemployment for millions, finance looks indispensable for preventing an even worse catastrophe: climate change.

A mechanism of carbon “bonus-malus” is proposed, where the average emission rate of world countries serves as the anchor: above the threshold, countries should pay a malus, under this level, they would receive a bonus.

This paper seeks to bring a historical perspective to current global financial architecture issues on the speed and scale of climate finance needed to achieve a safer two degrees world. We look back in history to a similar episode for lessons: the financing and building of railroads in the 19th century.

Low interest rates tend to favor ‘green technologies’ competitiveness while also increasing their cost volatility.

An argument in favor of Green infrastructure Quantitative Easing (GIQE).

Three factors hold back low-carbon investment in Europe: the risk/return profile of low-carbon investment projects, regulatory and behavioural features in the financial sector and a more global political economy context. These are key issues to create an investment climate for climate investment.

Financial shocks can originate from ecological imbalances what justifies more careful attention by the financial regulators to this specific risk. A new macroprudential framework is proposed.