Impacts, risks, adaptations

EAERE participation in the Fifty-fifth Session of the IPCC (IPCC-55) and Twelfth Session of Working Group II (WG II-12), Electronic Session, 14 – 25 February 2022

Between February 14 and February 25 2022, the IPCC held its Fifty-fifth Session (IPCC-55) and Twelfth Session of Working Group II (WG II-12) in a virtual format with the support of Germany. The main agenda items of WGII-12 were the approval of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) and acceptance of the underlying scientific technical assessment. EAERE President Phoebe Koundouri and EAERE Vice-President Enrica De Cian participated in the Sessions as EAERE representatives.

You can read their note here.

Economy & carbon markets

IPCC opens registration for the Government and Expert review of the Draft of Synthesis Report of the Sixth Assessment Report

GENEVA, Jan 3 – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has opened registration for the Government and Expert Review of the Draft of the Summary for Policymakers and longer report of the Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report.

As of today, interested experts can register for participation in the review here: The Government and Expert Review of the Synthesis Report of the Sixth Assessment Report will take place from 10 January to 20 March 2022, 23:59 (GMT+1).

Registration of experts closes on 13 March 2022, 23:59 (GMT+1), one week before the end of the review.

The Synthesis Report is the final product of the Sixth Assessment Report to be approved in September 2022. It synthesises and integrates  the findings of all three Working Group contributions to the Sixth Assessment Report and the special reports that have been produced in this cycle.

“The Synthesis Report will bring together all the findings and work of the IPCC during the entire Sixth Assessment Cycle. This is why the review and scrutiny by both governments and experts is such a crucial and critical part of the process. The review will further firm up policy relevance, the scientific integrity and robustness of this closing chapter of the Sixth Assessment Cycle,” said Hoesung Lee, the Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In August 2021, the IPCC released the approved Working Group I report which assessed the state of physical science, showing that climate change is widespread, rapid and intensifying. The second and third instalments from Working Group II and III are scheduled to be released at the end of February and early April respectively in 2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought its challenges with the Synthesis Report Core Writing Team having to work entirely virtually to produce this draft.

“We have a dedicated and hardworking Core Writing Team that has developed a solid and strong  Draft of the Synthesis Report that experts and governments can comment on. After the review, the Core Writing Team will continue to work hard and address the comments received, despite the challenging circumstances of the pandemic, to prepare  the  revised Draft ready for the Final Government Distribution,” said Hoesung Lee.

More than 50 scientists and experts worldwide have dedicated their time and contributed their knowledge and expertise to the  Draft of the Synthesis Report..

For experts to register for the review, a self-declaration of expertise is required. Once the registration is complete, and before accessing the draft, reviewers agree to the terms of the review, including the confidentiality of the draft and review materials, which are provided solely for the purpose of the review. The drafts may not be cited, quoted or distributed.

The government and expert review is a formal component of the Synthesis Report development process. The drafts submitted for review, the review comments, and the subsequent responses by the authors will become publicly available once the report is published. In line with IPCC practice, review comments are not anonymous.

Source: IPCC Website

Ecosystems & biodiversity

Responses to UK Government’s response to the Dasgupta Review

For reference: UK Government’s response to the Dasgupta Review

The first response stems from a meeting with the UK Treasury on the issue of environmental discounting, chaired by Ben Groom. The workshop included presentations by EAERE President Christian Gollier, Moritz Drupp and Anthony Millner. After hearing arguments on both sides, Treasury opted to recommend a review of environmental pricing rather than having an environmental discount rate across the board. New guidance on this will be written in this regard in the coming months for the Green Book refresh in Spring 2022. This conclusion responds to this comment in the UK Government response to the Dasgupta review on page 22: “The Green Book continues to be updated in line with emerging evidence and best practice. For example, HM Treasury is conducting an expert review into the application of the discount rate for environmental impacts, on which Professor Dasgupta will be consulted, and which will be concluded this year”.

The conclusion can be found here

Second response: biodiversity net gain guidance.

The UK Government response to the Dasgupta Review states on page 22:

“To this end, HM Treasury has convened a group of experts, including academic economists and scientists as well as practitioners, to produce supplementary guidance on Biodiversity Valuation for the Green Book, in addition to the guidance on natural capital. This world-leading guidance is expected to be published later this year and will complement the Environment Bill’s biodiversity net gain provisions in supporting better consideration of biodiversity in decision-making.”

Ian Bateman, Ben Groom, EJ Millner Gulland and Rosie Hails are all part of this group, together with economists from Treasury, Defra Forestry Department team. The team is hoping to provide guidance on biodiversity for the Treasury Green Book on CBA.

Economy & carbon markets

Carbon tax in Israel: better imperfect than nothing at all – Note by Ruslana Rachel Palatnik

In September 2021 the Israeli parliament – the Knesset – gave its approval to the 2021-2022 state budget in its first reading. For the first time in the history of Israel, the budget introduces a carbon tax. The carbon tax is far from reflecting efficient emissions pricing: excise duty will gradually increase until 2028, reflecting the full price of carbon (which is also updated annually), but the tax on gasoline and diesel will reflect only 30% of the carbon price. In contrast, the excise tax on fuel oil will reflect not only the price of carbon but also the price of SOX depending on the Sulfur content. 

There is a lot to criticize in the tax outline. But, in my humble opinion, this is a real revolution in Israeli policy. I have been studying energy & climate change economics for almost two decades and can testify that until recently, policymakers in Israel have refrained from dealing with environmental issues, arguing that in our small economy the priority should be given to other urgent issues such as unemployment, inflation, or geopolitical tension. Until a year ago, a carbon tax was absent from the agenda of the Israeli academy as well as the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Energy vehemently opposed it. 

A combination of recent processes contributed to the dramatic change: 

First, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the government debt. The Ministry of Finance understood that raising VAT or income tax during the ongoing crisis means political suicide. Accordingly, the carbon tax backed by social-environmental rational suddenly became a feasible option for raising government income. 

Second, for the first time in Israeli politics, the climate crisis has come out of the esoteric corner: the topic was included in the government’s guidelines thanks to the left-wing Meretz party that pushed to raise the issue upon joining the fragile coalition; carbon tax hit the Central Bank’s agenda thanks to the Governor Prof. Amir Yaron. Furthermore, the State Comptroller opened an investigation on how Israel copes with risks imposed by climate change. In parallel, the professional staff of the Ministry of Environmental Protection managed to collaborate with the other relevant Government Ministries, academics, and stakeholders in the process of formulating recommendations for carbon tax policy. The policy recommendations were based on research findings mediated to the various levels. 

The outline of the carbon tax, planned for a long-term increase, has also an important role in providing certainty about Israel’s long-term policy as it sends an incentive for markets, entrepreneurs, and firms to effectively use various means to reduce emissions and invest in new technologies, processes and ideas to further reduce emissions. 

The critics of the proposed tax are right – it is not optimal. I hope that decision-makers will be able to continue to update it, as well as to accompany it with supportive policies so that the State of Israel joins the global effort of reaching Net Zero at minimal cost for the economy and the society. 

Ruslana Rachel Palatnik,

Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics and Management, The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Israel

Senior Researcher, NRERC- Natural Resource and Environmental Research Center, University of Haifa, Israel 

Senior Guest Research Scholar at the Energy, Climate, and Environment (ECE) Program at IIASA- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria 


EAERE representatives in the approval of the IPCC’s WG1 Summary for Policymakers

Two members of the Policy Outreach Committee, Xavier Labandeira and Aldo Ravazzi, participated as EAERE observers in the approval process of the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the IPCC’s Working Group on the physical science basis of climate Change (WG1) that took place between 28 July and 8 August 2021. This SPM is a non-technical synopsis that condenses into about 40 pages the contribution of WG1 to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC, a document of about 3000 pages in which some 200 authors from all over the world have participated during the last three years. The approval of SPMs is carried out line by line by delegates from the approximately 200 governments that are part of the IPCC, with the presence of the report’s co-chairs of the working group and author representatives from all its chapters.

The WG1 SPM, presented in public on 11 August, points out that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, the ocean and the land, causing changes in the climate system that are unprecedented in many centuries. The document indicates that global surface temperature will continue to rise until at least mid-century under all the considered emission scenarios, such that during the 21st century global warming of 1.5-2ºC will be exceeded unless there are deep reductions in GHG emissions in the coming decades.

The gloomy conclusions of the WG1 SPM were widely echoed by the media, which highlighted the inevitability of the devastating impacts of global warming, although noting that there is still a small window to prevent the worse outcomes. Environmental organizations, also present as observers in the SPM approval process, claimed that while this is not the first generation of world leaders to be warned by scientists of the severity of the climate crisis, they are the last who can afford to ignore it.

Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, indicated that the report is a red code for humanity and assured that the viability of our societies depends on the actions of governments, companies and citizens to limit the increase in temperature to 1.5ºC. Alok Sharma, president of COP 26, underlined that the impacts of the climate crisis can be seen throughout the world and that, unless immediate action is taken, we will see how the worst effects impact lives, livelihoods and natural habitats.

WG2 (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change) and WG3 (Mitigation of climate change) of the IPCC are in the process of completing their reports and will present their SPMs within the next few months.

Emissions & mitigation

£30 million official backing for Oxford-led greenhouse gas removal programme

Research teams across the UK, coordinated by an University of Oxford-led Hub, have been chosen to probe innovative ways of removing greenhouse gases to help to stabilise the climate. Encompassing a dozen universities and with funding for nearly five years, this is the UK Government’s largest-ever research programme to understand and scale-up greenhouse gas removal (GGR) techniques.

Read the full article by the University of Oxford here

Economy & carbon markets

Blanchard-Tirole report: major future economic challenges

For the next year or so, the key challenge will be to deal with Covid-19 and its legacy. The exit from the pandemic, the high unemployment and the potential bankruptcies, the economic recovery, the handling of public and private debt: these issues are what will make the headlines and will be the main topics of political attention. In January 2020, President Macron asked Olivier Blanchard and Jean Tirole to organize and head a commission addressing these structural challenges. In agreement with the President, they chose to focus on three long-term structural challenges: the climate change, the economic inequalities, and the demographic challenge. The first chapter on Climate Change has been authored by EAERE President Christian Gollier and Winner of EAERE Award for ERC Grants laureates Mar Reguant.

Read the full report here

Blanchard-Tirole report: France must face the future

Original article by: Toulouse School of Economics
Published on June 23, 2021

As the pandemic spread around the world last year, French President Emmanuel Macron asked former IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard and TSE’s Jean Tirole to preside over an independent commission on the challenges for post-Covid society. Recently delivered to the Elysée, their three-part report focuses on global warming, inequality, and demographic change. The lead authors answered our questions about the report and its main conclusions.

What motivated you to write this report?

Jean Tirole: Our societies are facing unprecedented challenges with the Covid-19 pandemic and its consequences. Emerging from the crisis, dealing with rising unemployment and bankruptcy risks, fostering economic recovery, or managing public and private debt will be complicated objectives for every government. In addition, the structural difficulties that prevailed prior to Covid-19 are still with us and have often been exacerbated by the pandemic. That is why, when President Macron asked us to chair a commission to address these structural issues, with the assurance that we would have complete freedom in selecting the commission’s members and that we would be able to present our findings independently, we enthusiastically accepted.

Olivier Blanchard: We chose the 24 members primarily for their expertise in economics. They belong to very diverse intellectual and political currents. They are divided into three equal groups: French, European non-French and US-based. One of our members, Emmanuel Farhi (Harvard), sadly passed away last summer, just hours after participating in one of our plenary sessions. This report is dedicated to the memory of this exceptional man and researcher.

What are your recommendations on global warming?

JT: The urgency of global warming requires rapid and large-scale action, and success will largely depend on technological advances. We must avoid increasing the costs of ecological transition, which will be high in any case, by opting for measures that are not effective. The good news is that people are clearly concerned about global warming.  The bad news is that they are reluctant to bear the cost of the ecological transition and its consequences on their way of life. At the same time, the lack of transparency on the cost and effectiveness of different measures does not make the discussion any easier.

The public’s attitude towards green taxes is determined more by their visibility than their effectiveness. Although unpopular, carbon pricing is essential to the transition because not only does it encourage greener behavior and stimulates green R&D in a transparent and efficient way, but, perhaps more importantly, it allows better choices to be made and overpriced solutions to be ruled out. To implement a fair carbon price, it needs to be expanded. The existing system is weakened by abusive use of exemptions and subsidies for fossil fuels. We must also be particularly concerned about potential losers, such as modest households living in suburban and rural areas. To avoid environmental dumping in other countries, this tax must be accompanied by a carbon adjustment at our borders. This is the only way our societies can face the challenge of global warming in the long run.

OB: The report also points out that governments need to encourage fundamental research breakthroughs to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. In addition to carbon pricing, targeted subsidies, standards, bans, and incentives have a role to play. . These types of interventions are however more arbitrary than carbon pricing and more prone to lobbying, regulatory capture, and red tape, which means that we need to ensure good governance. We propose the creation of two independent bodies, if possible at the European level: the first, which we call EU-ARPA-E, would be used to finance high-risk, high-potential R&D projects; the second would be used to inform citizens and public decision-makers of the costs of different ways to achieve climate objectives.

Can France make a difference?

JT: France is responsible for less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions. However, French public opinion largely supports measures to reduce these emissions, which is a major political asset in international negotiations. Together with other ambitious European countries, France should lead the Green Deal for Europe program and create a “climate club” with the Biden administration, which would work toward a uniform and universal carbon price for the coalition and a WTO-compatible border carbon adjustment. Membership in such a club could quickly become attractive to other regions of the world, as it would confer trade and carbon dividend benefits that would offset the costs of losing the ability to engage in environmental dumping.

How unequal is France?

OB: France’s standard statistics on income, wealth and regional inequality are not bad by international comparisons. And unlike many other countries, these statistics have not worsened in the recent period. Still, France faces a huge issue of unequal opportunities, particularly in education.

In a survey of a representative sample conducted specifically for this report, the team examined the French population’s views on inequality, economic insecurity, the labor market, and government policies. Overall, 73% of respondents believe that income inequality is a serious or very serious problem.. Meanwhile, 70% believe children from high-income backgrounds receive a much better education; only 44% think that all students have the same chance of going to university. OECD data and PISA scores support this impression.

What can be done to address inequality?

JT: The report proposes several areas for improvement: access to a better education, a more redistributive tax system, institutions to encourage the creation of high-quality jobs, and global taxation agreements.

More has to be spent to reduce educational inequality, and it has to be spent in a smarter way. More resources must be devoted to the education and vocational training of disadvantaged students. Teacher salaries are too low in France, too few qualified candidates apply for teaching positions, especially in the science disciplines that are so essential to obtaining quality jobs.  Apprenticeships must be extended, and more needs to be done to link vocational training to employment. Young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, need to be better informed about the importance of skills, jobs, and careers available. The choice of fields of study must reflect current and future job opportunities.

The report also proposes a progressive, unified inheritance and gift tax system, based on the beneficiary. Instead of taxing inheritances at each death, the new system would tax all gifts and inheritances received by the heir, so that those who receive more are taxed at higher rates. Preferential and reduced rates based on the relationship between the donor and the heir would remain possible. France has relatively high rates of inheritance tax, but loopholes imply that the inheritance tax brings limited funds to the Treasury. The tax should have a very broad base, including most or all assets. It should only apply at relatively high levels of transmission. To increase support for such a reform, the proceeds from inheritance taxation could be specifically allocated to measures helping the disadvantaged young to acquire a good education.

OB:  The ultimate source of inequalities comes from the nature of technological progress, the nature of trade, and the way firms are organized.

It is obviously essential to prepare workers for the available jobs, and better can be done to improve professional training throughout professional life. One must however go further. The traditional approach has been to take the distribution of jobs as given.  It should not be so.  Firms’ choices of organization, of technology, the nature of research and development projects, are endogenous, and respond to incentives. This has led the commission to explore what can be done at this margin.

The relatively light taxation of capital relative to labor induces firms to privilege machines over workers. Higher taxation of capital, or a lower taxation of labor would encourage firms to adopt more labor-friendly technology. One should however explore further avenues.  Firms may be induced to offer more good jobs, more career development opportunities to their workers.  They may be induced to adopt more labor-friendly technology. In that perspective, Pôle emploi should evolve to have closer relations not only with job seekers, but also with firms, exploring how they can create better jobs and offer better careers.

On the research side, one can think of giving subsidies to research technological innovations which are more likely to complement workers rather than substitute for them. We realize that  awarding R&D and investment subsidies on the basis of their impact on jobs requires information public officials may not have, and that the discretionary nature of such policies raises concerns about capture by lobbies; and so much more work needs to be done.  But we believe that exploring those avenues is essential to tackling inequalities at the source.  Pre-distribution and redistribution can only go so far.

What are the main demographic challenges?

JT: Improvements not only in life expectancy, but also in the quality of life in old age are a major achievement. However, they imply adjustments in the way society is organized. To keep the French pension system in balance, the increase in life expectancy requires either a reduction in benefits, an increase in contributions, or a higher age of retirement. Public pension expenditure is high in France, mainly because of very low rates of working people aged 55 to 64 and a very low effective retirement age. We thus need to rethink the system, both to face current challenges and to be flexible enough to face future issues.

It is essential to begin by rationalizing the existing system. Different avenues can then be followed to introduce flexibility, to take into account differences in careers and life expectancy, and ultimately create a system that is unified, transparent, and fair.

How can the pension system be rationalized?

OB: We propose a points system that is relatively simple and transparent. Over the course of their career, workers are awarded points: for example, 100 points if their salary is equal to the average salary prevailing at the time; 200 points if it is equal to twice the average salary, and so on. If certain conditions are met, points can be awarded for periods not worked (as is already the case for maternity, caring for relatives, or unemployment).

On retirement, the points acquired are converted into an initial retirement pension. The value of each point is the same for all pensioners and adjusted annually according to wage increases and demographic changes. Low-paid workers benefit from “free points” to enable them to receive a decent pension and possibly to retire earlier. People who continue to work beyond the minimum retirement age and wait to request the liquidation of their rights continue to acquire points. The number of points they acquire reflect not only the additional period of work but also the reduced number of years for which they can expect to  receive a pension.

In the event of a transitory shock, whether it be macroeconomic fluctuations or the bulge in the age pyramid caused by the retirement of the baby boom generation, or Covid-19, there is a case for allowing deviations from the rules. The most obvious way to do this is to create an independent body to manage and monitor a reserve fund.

The report also emphasizes the need for penibility to be treated at the firm or industry level. Early retirement for hard jobs can obviously be desirable, but the retirement benefits between the early-retirement date and the legal age of retirement should not be mutualized. Making firms accountable for early retirement has several benefits: it forces them to offer better working conditions to their workers (to reduce chronic diseases) and it prevents them from off-loading to other industries the extra costs their activities impose on society.

JT: We are convinced that such a reform, accompanied by measures designed to increase the demand for older workers by companies, more flexible work conditions for older workers, a better prevention and treatment of chronic illnesses, and the ability of older workers to work longer if they so want, will cushion the blow from demographic changes and allow the system to adjust over time The report also urges better integration to address low labor force participation among the immigrant population, especially women. Several measures can be implemented to address this problem, which has additional consequences for the balance of the pension system.

If solutions exist, why has there been so little progress?

OB: Reforms are often poorly designed, explained, and implemented. The devil is often in the details, so it is essential first to analyze the challenges, the positive aspects and the negative aspects of different policies. This requires the contributions of a number of experts from scientific and social disciplines.

Without public support, no reform has a good chance of success. We have seen this often in France in the recent past. From the outset, particular attention must be paid to perceptions, to the likely winners and losers. This implies a comprehensive approach. We have tried to provide an economist’s view of the facts and possible policies, to consider what needs to be done to make these policies acceptable to the public, and to make practical suggestions for implementation.

JT: The three challenges on which we have focused – global warming, inequality, and population aging – raise complex technical and economic issues. Many of our decisions about how we respond must be made in a context of great uncertainty. But these three challenges are also time bombs that raise fundamental questions of equity both between and within generations. Their immediate effects are much weaker than their long-term effects, which encourages policymakers to delay. But we must get to work now, because the cost of inaction will be much greater in the future.

Some key recommendations


– Carbon pricing is essential to encourage greener behaviors, and to stimulate green R&D in a transparent and efficient way.

– Exemptions and subsidies for fossil fuels must be quickly phased out.

– Potential losers, such as modest households living in peri-urban and rural areas, should be compensated.

– To prevent environmental dumping, the carbon tax must be accompanied by a carbon adjustment at borders

– R&D must be accelerated. An independent EU organization to finance high-risk, high-potential R&D projects must be created

– Targeted subsidies as well as standards, bans and incentives are warranted when carbon pricing reaches its limits. But these are complex and prone to capture. Another independent body should inform citizens and decision-makers of the cost of various climate actions.

– France can set an example and put pressure on other countries, promoting innovations that benefit poor countries, and developing effective international agreements


– School integration and increased spending on disadvantaged students must go hand in hand, improving access to education and employment

– More autonomy, accountability, and training should be given to schools and teachers to develop innovative approaches

– Teacher salaries, at least for new recruits, should be higher and reflect skills. Bonuses should encourage experienced teachers to work in disadvantaged areas

– Better design of inheritance tax, reducing loopholes, with revenues explicitly earmarked for equal opportunity redistribution

– Implement fairer taxation using AI, information exchange, and international agreements

– International best practices in continuing education include rigorous certification, with job training design based on interactions with private-sector employers

– Stimulate the creation of high-quality jobs, improve the internal organization of firms, influence technological progress, and redefine regulation to avoid social dumping


– Workers accumulate points until they apply for their pension. Each point would give the right to the same amount

– People with low salaries or a difficult career path should receive “free points”

– Working beyond the retirement age should earn points for both additional years worked and the reduced number of years receiving a pension

– People in strenuous jobs should be able to retire early, with their employers bearing the cost

– The value of a pension point should be calculated to balance the system, and indexed to wage growth instead of price inflation

– A rule that maintains a 2:1 ratio of work to retirement years would keep the system broadly in balance

– A new independent board should make decisions reflecting society’s preferences, and a new reserve fund should protect against shocks

– Seniors should be encouraged to work longer by improving further education, working conditions, and the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases.

-Firms should be incentivized to keep their older workers longer, if they so desire.

– Immigrants, especially women, must be better integrated into the labor market

Expert contributors

Part I – global warming

Christian Gollier – EAERE President, Director, TSE

Mar Reguant – Associate Professor of Economics, Northwestern

Part Two – Economic Inequality and Insecurity

Dani Rodrik – Professor of Political Economy, Harvard

Stefanie Stantcheva – Professor of Economics, Harvard

Part Three – Demographic Change

Axel Börsch-Supan- Director, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy

Claudia Diehl – Professor of Microsociology, University of Konstanz

Carol Propper – Professor of Economics, Imperial College Business School


Philippe Aghion – Professor, Collège de France, INSEAD, and LSE

Richard Blundell – Professor of Political Economy, UCL

Laurence Boone – Chief Economist, OECD

Valentina Bosetti – Professor of Economics, Bocconi University

Daniel Cohen – Professor of Economics, École Normale Supérieure, Vice-President, Paris School of Economics

Peter Diamond – Professor, MIT – Nobel laureate in economics, 2010

Emmanuel Farhi – Professor of Economics, Harvard

Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln – Professor of Macroeconomics and Development, Goethe University

Michael Greenstone – Professor of Economics, Director of the Becker Friedman Institute and the Energy Policy Institute in Chicago

Hilary Hoynes – Professor of Public Policy and Economics, UC Berkeley

Paul Krugman – Professor Emeritus of Economics, Graduate Center, CUNY – Nobel laureate in economics, 2008

Thomas Philippon – Professor of Finance, NYU Stern

Jean Pisani-Ferry – Professor, European University Institute

Adam Posen – President, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Nick Stern – Professor of Economics and Government, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on global warming and the Environment, LSE

Lawrence Summers – Professor and President Emeritus, Harvard

Laura Tyson – Professor, Haas School for Business and Social Impact, UC Berkeley


Secretariat and Research Support

France Stratégie

Impacts, risks, adaptations

EAERE is an IPCC observer organization

EAERE is officially an IPCC observer organization. The IPCC has at present 30 Observer Organizations among United Nations bodies and organizations as participating organisations, and 143 non-UN observers. Representatives of observer organizations may attend sessions of the IPCC and the plenary sessions of the IPCC Working Groups. They are also invited to encourage experts to review draft IPCC reports.

The full list of observer organizations can be accessed here

Economy & carbon markets

New paper on Nature: Eight priorities for calculating the social cost of carbon

EAERE Policy Outreach Committee (POC) Members Simon Dietz (London School of Economics) and Ben Groom (University of Exeter) are among the authors of the paper “Eight priorities for calculating the social cost of carbon. Advice to the Biden administration as it seeks to account for mounting losses from storms, wildfires and other climate impacts”, recently published on Nature.

“Although the SCC is not the last word in climate-policy analysis, it is an essential and clarifying metric. It is feasible to improve it within one year and to launch a process for continued updates thereafter. Let’s get to work.”

Read the Full Paper here

Impacts, risks, adaptations

The Promise of Green Growth: A Pathway to Prosperity while Achieving National and Global Ambitions

The Promise of Green Growth: A Pathway to Prosperity while Achieving National and Global Ambitions – GGGI Technical Report No. 15 forms part of the collection Achieving Global Green Transformation, which includes GGGI flagship reports highlighting the economic foundations of green growth and key approaches for developing green growth policies and plans and for implementing and financing infrastructure within several key sectors.

In light of the deep global transformations we are witnessing in this century around the globe, many countries are starting to rethink their options for long-term prosperity. The wellbeing of our environment is starting to raise serious concerns, and governments are recognizing that the conventional, resource-intensive economic growth model is not sustainable in the long-term.

Read the full report here