Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 32 items for :

  • "EU taxonomy" x
Clear All
Mr. Jiaqian Chen, Maksym Chepeliev, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, and Mr. Philippe Wingender

. The cap is reduced annually so that emissions in 2030 would be in line with the current ETS reduction target of 43 percent compared to 2005 levels. 2 The ETS applies to the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom (as of 2020). 3 In January 2020, it was also linked with the Swiss ETS. Free emission allowances are allocated to certain firms in industrial sectors ( Figure 6 ): Manufacturing sectors deemed at risk of carbon leakage—as determined by the EU taxonomy—receive free allowances at 100 percent of a benchmark level, 4 that was

Mr. Jiaqian Chen, Maksym Chepeliev, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, and Mr. Philippe Wingender
This paper aims to contribute to the debate on the choice of policies to reach the more ambitious 2030 emission reduction goals currently under consideration. It provides an analysis of the macroeconomic and distributional impacts of different options to scale up the mitigation effort, and proposes enhancements to the existing EU policies. A key finding is that a well-designed package, consisting of more extensive carbon pricing across EU countries and sectors, combined with cuts in distortionary taxes and targeted green investment support, would allow the EU to reach the emission goals with practically no effects on aggregate income. To enhance the social and political acceptance of climate policies, part of the revenue from carbon pricing should be used to compensate the most vulnerable households and to support the transition of workers to greener jobs. A carbon border adjustment mechanism could complement the package to avoid an increase in emissions outside the EU due to higher carbon prices in the EU (“carbon leakage”). From a risk-reward perspective, the benefits of reducing the risk of extreme life-threatening climate events and the health benefits from lower air pollution clearly outweigh the costs of mitigation policies.
Mr. Jiaqian Chen, Maksym Chepeliev, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, and Mr. Philippe Wingender
Mr. Jiaqian Chen, Maksym Chepeliev, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, and Mr. Philippe Wingender
Mr. Dimitri G Demekas and Pierpaolo Grippa

industrial plan” ( Paulson Institute 2019 ). In addition, in June 2020, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the China Securities & Regulatory Commission (CSRC), and the National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) released a draft “Green Bond Endorsed Project Catalogue” to update PBoC’s 2015 green bond guidelines and harmonize them with the “Guiding Catalogue.” The Climate Bonds Initiative has prepared a useful comparison of the EU and Chinese standards ( Climate Bonds Initiative 2019; on the EU taxonomy, see also ESG Global Advisers 2021 and Farmer & Thompson 2020

International Monetary Fund. European Dept.

cobenefits (IMF, 2020b). 18 Hungary Country Report (EC, 2019). 19 The preferential capital requirement program will initially cover the financing of renewable energy production (as defined by the EU taxonomy), as well as investment in green bonds. The list of eligible exposures will gradually be expanded in 2021. 20 The capital relief amounts to 5–7 percent of the total green loan volume, depending on the energy class of the respective properties. It is also conditional on the loan interest rates being at least 0.3pps lower than on conventional

International Monetary Fund. European Dept.

improvements where liquidity constraints are less binding; this would place a premium on the availability of comprehensive and consistent data on energy efficiency and development of active strategies for monitoring financial risks from such financial instruments to mitigate the risk of “greenwashing” ( Alogoskoufis and others, 2021 ), anchored to the EU Taxonomy on Sustainable Activities. Public support . It would also be necessary to promote R&D in early-stage technologies, such as hydrogen generation through renewable energy (water and wind), encourage the adoption of

Mr. Dimitri G Demekas and Pierpaolo Grippa
There are demands on central banks and financial regulators to take on new responsibilities for supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy. Regulators can indeed facilitate the reorientation of financial flows necessary for the transition. But their powers should not be overestimated. Their diagnostic and policy toolkits are still in their infancy. They cannot (and should not) expand their mandate unilaterally. Taking on these new responsibilities can also have potential pitfalls and unintended consequences. Ultimately, financial regulators cannot deliver a low-carbon economy by themselves and should not risk being caught again in the role of ‘the only game in town.’