La Commission européenne est restée indifférente aux nombreuses critiques qui ont émané de toutes parts, et pas seulement des ONG environnementales, autour de l'inclusion du gaz et du nucléaire dans le projet de taxonomie verte, dont la version définitive a été présentée le 2 février. Ces énergies "de transition" sont considérées par Bruxelles comme permettant de lutter contre le changement climatique. La taxonomie doit permettre d'orienter les financements privés pour atteindre l'objectif de neutralité carbone en 2050. 

Le compromis qui se dessine pour inclure gaz et nucléaire dans le panier des investissements verts sème la confusion.

Les si chères énergies que sont le gaz et le nucléaire se sont in extremis invitées dans les projets verts européens de 2022. Le texte qui prévoit de les intégrer à la taxonomie, le référentiel des activités favorables aux objectifs environnementaux de l’Union, a été publié le 31 décembre. Il ouvre la possibilité de faire financer par des subventions européennes la relance du nucléaire voulue par Emmanuel Macron qui préside le Conseil de l’Europe depuis le 1er janvier. Pourtant cette onction environnementale pour deux énergies controversées peut compromettre l’ambitieux Pacte Vert européen.

The EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), introduced in March 2021, put in place a set of sustainability-related disclosure obligations for financial market participants, including financial advisers.
Among other obligations, the SFDR requires asset managers to make specific sustainabilityrelated disclosures across their product range.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing humankind this century. If left unchecked, it is likely to result in more frequent and severe climatic events, with the potential to cause substantial disruption to our economies, businesses and livelihoods in the coming decades. Yet the associated risks remain poorly understood, as climate shocks differ from the financial shocks observed during previous crises. This paper describes the ECB’s economy-wide climate stress test, which has been developed to assess the resilience of non-financial corporates (NFCs) and euro area banks to climate risks, under various assumptions in terms of future climate policies. This stress test comprises three main pillars: (i) climate-specific scenarios to project climate and macroeconomic conditions over the next 30 years; (ii) a comprehensive dataset that combines climate and financial information for millions of companies worldwide and approximately 1,600 consolidated euro area banks; (iii) a novel set of climate-specific models to capture the direct and indirect transmission channels of climate risk drivers for firms and banks.
The results show that there are clear benefits to acting early: the short-term costs of the transition pale in comparison to the costs of unfettered climate change in the medium to long term. Additionally, the early adoption of policies to drive the transition to a zero-carbon economy also brings benefits in terms of investing in and rolling out more efficient technologies. The results also show that, although the effects of climate risk would increase moderately, on average, until 2050 if climate change is not mitigated, they would be concentrated in certain geographical areas and sectors. When comparing the effects of transition and physical risk, the outcomes indicate that physical risk would be more prominent in the long run, especially if policies to transition towards a greener economy were not introduced. Finally, the results suggest that for corporates and banks most exposed to climate risks, the impact would potentially be very significant, particularly in the absence of further climate mitigating actions. Climate change thus represents a major source of systemic risk, particularly for banks with portfolios concentrated in certain economic sectors and specific geographical areas.

From the outset environmental and social aspects have been part and parcel of the EU’s sustainable finance strategy. The need for social investments in order to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) on the 2030 Agenda, as well as to realise the social internal market envisaged in the Treaty on the European Union (Article 3), is widely recognised. So is the need to ensure that businesses show respect for human rights as envisaged in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). There are also many indications that investors see social investments as an opportunity, just as they acknowledge that it is risky not to take social factors into account in investments. It is therefore crucial to spell out what constitutes a social investment, as has been done in the case of environmental investments.