Beyond carbon pricing: the role of banking and monetary policy in financing the transition to a low-carbon economy

It is widely acknowledged that introducing a price on carbon represents a crucial precondition for filling the current gap in low-carbon investment. However, as this paper argues, carbon pricing in itself may not be sufficient. This is due to the existence of market failures in the process of creation and allocation of credit that may lead commercial banks – the most important source of external finance for firms – not to respond as expected to price signals. Under certain economic conditions, banks would shy away from lending to low-carbon activities even in presence of a carbon price. This possibility calls for the implementation of additional policies not based on prices. In particular, the paper discusses the potential role of monetary policies and macroprudential financial regulation: modifying the incentives and constraints that banks face when deciding their lending strategy - through, for instance, a differentiation of reserve requirements according to the destination of lending - may fruitfully expand credit creation directed towards low-carbon sectors. This seems to be especially feasible in emerging economies, where the central banking framework usually allows for a stronger public control on credit allocation and a wider range of monetary policy instruments than the sole interest rate

Clean Innovation and Heterogeneous Financing Costs

Access to finance is a major barrier to clean innovation. We incorporate heterogeneous and endogenous financing costs in a directed technical change model and identify optimal climate mitigation policies. The presence of a financing experience effect induces more ambitious policies in the short-term, both to shift innovation and production towards clean sectors and to reduce the financing cost differential across technologies, which further facilitates the transition. The optimal climate policy mix between carbon taxes and clean research subsidies depends on whether experience is gained through clean production or research. In our benchmark scenario, where clean financing costs decline as cumulative clean output increases, we find an optimal carbon price premium of 47% in 2025, relative to a case with no financing costs

Optimal climate policy as if the transition matters

The optimal transition to a low-carbon economy must account for adjustment costs in switching from dirty to clean capital, technological progress, and economic and climatic shocks. We study the low-carbon transition using a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with emissions abatement costs calibrated on a large energy modelling database, solved with recursive methods. We show how capital inertia puts upward pressure on emissions and temperatures in the short run, but that nonetheless it is optimal to actively disinvest from – to ‘strand’ – a significant share of the dirty capital stock. Conversely, clean technological progress, as well as uncertainty about climatic and economic factors, lead to lower emissions and temperatures in the long run. Putting these factors together, we estimate a net premium of 33% on the optimal carbon price today relative to a ‘straw man’ model with perfect capital mobility, fixed abatement costs and no uncertainty

Believe me when I say green! Heterogeneous expectations and climate policy uncertainty

We develop a dynamic model where heterogeneous firms take investment decisions depending on their beliefs on future carbon prices. A policy-maker announces a forward-looking carbon price schedule but can decide to default on its plans if perceived transition risks are high. We show that weak policy commitment, especially when combined with ambitious mitigation announcements, can trap the economy into a vicious circle of credibility loss, carbon-intensive investments and increasing risk perceptions, ultimately leading to a failure of the transition. The presence of behavioural frictions and heterogeneity - both in capital investment choices and in the assessment of the policy-maker’s credibility - has strong non-linear effects on the transition dynamics and the emergence of ‘high-carbon traps’. We identify analytical conditions leading to a successful transition and provide a numerical application for the EU economy

Clean innovation and heterogeneous financing costs

Access to finance is a major barrier to clean innovation. We incorporate heterogeneous and endogenous financing costs in a directed technical change model and identify optimal climate mitigation policies. The presence of a financing experienceeffect pushes the policy- maker to strengthen policies in the short-term, both to shift innovation and production towards clean sectors and to reduce the financing cost differential across technologies, which further facilitates the transition. The optimal climate policy mix between carbon taxes and clean research subsidies depends on the drivers of the experience effect. In our benchmark scenario, where clean financing costs decline as cumulative clean output increases, we find an optimal carbon price premium of 47% in 2025, relative to a case with no financing costs

Believe me when I say green! Heterogeneous expectations and climate policy uncertainty

We develop a dynamic model where heterogeneous firms take investment decisions depending on their beliefs on future carbon prices. A policy-maker announces a forward-looking carbon price schedule but can decide to default on its plans if perceived transition risks are high. We show that weak policy commitment, especially when combined with ambitious mitigation announcements, can trap the economy into a vicious circle of credibility loss, carbon-intensive investments and increasing risk perceptions, ultimately leading to a failure of the transition. The presence of behavioural frictions and heterogeneity - both in capital investment choices and in the assessment of the policy-maker’s credibility - has strong non-linear effects on the transition dynamics and the emergence of ‘high-carbon traps’. We identify analytical conditions leading to a successful transition and provide a numerical application for the EU economy

It takes two to dance: institutional dynamics and climate-related financial policies

This article studies how institutional dynamics might affect the implementation of climate-related financial policies. First, we propose a three-dimensional framework to distinguish: i) motives for policy implementation (prudential or promotional); ii) policy instruments (informational, incentive or coercive); and iii) implementing authorities (political or delegated). Second, we use this framework to show how sustainable financial interventions in certain jurisdictions - most notably, Europe - rely solely on informational policies to achieve both promotional and prudential objectives. Policymakers in other jurisdictions - e.g., China - also implement incentive or coercive financial policies to achieve promotional objectives. Third, we identify two main institutional explanations for this European ‘promotional gap’: i) limited control of political authorities on financial dynamics; and ii) strong powers and independence of delegated authorities. This governance configuration leads to an institutional deadlock in which only measures fitting with both political and delegated authorities’ objectives can be implemented. Finally, we discuss the scenarios that might originate from the current institutional setting. We identify three possible evolutionary paths: i) a drift towards a green financial technocracy; ii) a re-politicization of delegated authorities; iii) a move towards fiscal-monetary coordination

Optimal climate policy as if the transition matters

The optimal transition to a low-carbon economy must account for adjustment costs in switching from dirty to clean capital, technological progress, and economic and climatic shocks. We study the low-carbon transition using a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with emissions abatement costs calibrated on a large energy modelling database, solved with recursive methods. We show how capital inertia puts upward pressure on emissions and temperatures in the short run, but that nonetheless it is optimal to actively disinvest from – to ‘strand’ – a significant share of the dirty capital stock. Conversely, clean technological progress, as well as uncertainty about climatic and economic factors, lead to lower emissions and temperatures in the long run. Putting these factors together, we estimate a net premium of 33% on the optimal carbon price today relative to a ‘straw man’ model with perfect capital mobility, fixed abatement costs and no uncertainty

Capital stranding cascades: The impact of decarbonisation on productive asset utilisation

This article develops a novel methodological framework to investigate the exposure of eco- nomic systems to the risk of physical capital stranding. Combining Input-Output (IO) and network theory, we define measures to identify both the sectors likely to trigger relevant capital stranding cascades and those most exposed to capital stranding risk. We show how, in a sample of ten European countries, mining is among the sectors with the highest external asset strand- ing multipliers. The sectors most affected by capital stranding triggered by decarbonisation include electricity and gas; coke and refined petroleum products; basic metals; and transporta- tion. From these sectors, stranding would frequently cascade down to chemicals; metal products; motor vehicles water and waste services; wholesale and retail trade; and public administration. Finally, we provide an estimate for the lower-bound amount of assets at risk of transition-related stranding, which is in the range of 0.6-8.2% of the overall productive capital stock for our sample of countries, mainly concentrated in the electricity and gas sector, manufacturing, and mining. These results confirm the systemic relevance of transition-related risks on European societies.Series: Ecological Economic Paper

An ‘equal effort’ approach to assessing the North–South climate finance gap

This study employs a number of Integrated Assessment Models to determine what the optimal financial transfers between high-income and developing economies would be if climate mitigation effort, measured as mitigation costs as a share of gross domestic product, were to be divided equally across regions through a global carbon market. We find these to be larger than both current and planned international climate finance flows. Four out of six models imply that a North–South annual financial transfer of around US$400 billion is required by 2050, while the other two models imply larger sums, up to$2 trillion. However, the outlook for multi-country carbon markets is not encouraging at the moment. We thus review some potential sources of funds that might be used to fill the climate finance gap, including public aid, private investment, development banks, and special climate-related facilities. We find the shortcomings of public climate finance appear particularly hard to overcome, and argue that expanding private finance, either in the form of Foreign Direct Investment or through the issuance of ‘green bonds’, appears to be a more promising direction. Policy relevance Climate change is a profoundly asymmetric development issue, as countries at lower stages of development are likely to suffer disproportionate climate damages and mitigation costs. High-income countries have agreed to mobilise $100 billion a year by 2020 ‘to address the needs of developing countries’. However, scaling up climate finance has been slow and, more importantly, targets have not been chosen on the basis of a ‘scientific’ assessment. This article presents a novel, model-based analysis of the ‘equal effort’ inter-regional climate finance that could provide useful insights to policy makers in future negotiations. The gap identified by comparing models’ projections to current and planned financial flows is large but not prohibitive. In particular, private investment appears to be the most likely channel to fill the gap, although various public policies need to be implemented to improve the risk/return profile of low-carbon investment opportunities