“Green” finance has marketed green bonds as a tool to finance projects with environmental benefits. As internalizing a negative externality amounts to paying an additional cost (such as the costs of depollution for example), the usefulness of the bond is based on the assumption that this additional cost would be, at least partially, transferred to bondholders – the buyers of green bonds – thus making finance contribute to the common good. This assumption is unrealistic. We show this in a simple way by explaining how the mechanics of the primary bond market forbid it when professional investors participate in the placement of green bonds. For such (non green) investors, the fact that the green bond is not contractually different from a traditional bond prevents them from giving it any singular value. This in turn necessarily means that the rate of return on a green bond cannot be lower than that on a traditional bond (all other things being equal). In conclusion, the green bond cannot constitute an incentive to carry out a green project.
Ce séminaire porte sur la finance solidaire et la finance à impact qui sont considérées comme des modes de financement alternatifs ou complémentaires aux circuits financiers traditionnels. Il interroge en particulier l’évolution de ces deux types de finances au regard de leurs objectifs affichés, étant donné leur essor important depuis une quinzaine d’années.
This one-day workshop brings together researchers working on the design, evaluation, and impact of climate policies aimed at fostering the development and diffusion of low-carbon technologies. The presentations will cover a range of topics including the regulation of urban transport emissions, the integration of carbon dioxide removal into energy markets, the strategic adoption of...