Environmental and Energy Economics
Monetary Economics
January 5, 2020
Fighting climate change had become the major priority of public policy in a great number of countries. Central Banks have been called to contribute. Some have shown an inclination to internalize climate change in their policy objectives and frameworks. Others are more reluctant. This column presents a framework to think about the issue and identifies some major trade-offs and choices.
An essential distinction must be introduced from the start between the two responsibilities that Central Banks undertake in most countries: the supervision, regulation, and oversight of financial institutions activities; and the implementation of monetary policy.
One can think of a spectrum of interventions on climate change, some of them uncontroversial, others more innovative or intrusive.
This seems an obvious obligation. Climate should be a major part of financial risk assessments. Stress test and, in the Euro area, ICAAP, should have a climate component. Climate scenarios should be conducted in parallel (or as complements) to macroeconomic scenarios, as the climate has an obvious impact on the valuation of long-term assets and liabilities. Climate sensitivity analyses should systematically be conducted and updated for the portfolios of insurance companies, institutional investors and asset managers.
A subtle distinction must be introduced, however, between three categories:
Interestingly there is a feedback effect. If private institutions provision for the impact of future climate policies, they will be more resilient when measures are taken. In turn, increased preparation in the private sector may make it easier and politically more feasible to adopt the necessary policies.
Most capital ratios under Basel III regime are “risk weighted”. They vary with the estimated riskiness of loans and assets held by banks. It would be relatively straightforward to expand the concept and definition of riskiness to take climate risks into account. Again, there is a graduation of possible regimes depending on the kind of risks that would be considered: existing and materialized climate risks or future possible climate risks; impairments resulting from existing policies of future possible policies.
Capital ratios could also be used in a more proactive way by applying favourable regimes to loans and investments deemed “green” by supervisors. While operationally easy to implement, such regimes would confront Central Banks with a triple challenge:
None of these challenges is insurmountable. But they would need to be addressed ex-ante and the proper institutional and governance arrangements put into place.
While the concept of green finance is widely utilized, it remains largely undefined in terms of instruments and legislation. At this stage, in addition to specific regulatory incentives Central Banks could pursue two general and distinct objectives:
This section outlines a problematic rather than preconizing specific orientations.
It is obvious that the link between climate change and monetary policy is looser and less well-defined than with financial stability and supervision. One major difficulty is the difference in horizons. The conventional wisdom on monetary policy is that it has no impact on long term growth. Its influence is mostly felt on a 1.5 to 2.5 years horizon. By contrast, climate change is all about the long-term. Effects and policies materialize and matter over several decades.
This being said, Central Banks may want to take several climate change related aspects into account when designing and implementing monetary policies:
The big question, however, is whether Central Banks can use their monetary instruments to actively promote the fight against climate change. Over the last decade, Central Banks have significantly expanded their balance sheets, often by a factor of 5 to 10. Those balance sheets are now, in many countries, commensurate to the size of the national economy. With such an imprint on the economy and financial markets, Central Banks could take a more proactive approach to financing the climate transition.
Two possibilities come to mind, both without significant changes to the current operational framework:
Should Central Banks take that route? This may be the most sensitive and difficult question. This note only presents some reflections: first at a general level, and then applied to particular central banks.
Generally speaking It is useful to refer to the classical Musgrave distinction between the three functions of public economic policies: allocation (of resources), redistribution (of incomes) and stabilization.
In countries in which central banks are subordinate to the government and do not enjoy any independence a clear assignment of the various policy functions is less relevant. This is especially true if the government-directed credit is part of the economic model, as e.g. in the case in China.
In democratic societies, decisions on allocating resources and redistributing incomes are taken by elected bodies. Obviously, policies relating to climate change belong to that category. Independent central banks are non-elected “agents” of the society; they have a well-specified mandate to stabilize the economy. It can be argued that, Central Banks would go beyond their mandate if they were to tweak their instruments of monetary policy to allocate resources and direct credit. This seems to be the position taken by the Federal Reserve. Chairman Powell stated recently that: “Climate change is an important issue but not principally for the Fed”.
The situation may be more complex for the ECB. As compared to the US Federal Reserve, its mandate is both more hierarchical – with price stability as a priority objective – and more complex. The Treaty states that “… without prejudice to the objective of price stability”, the Euro system shall also “support the general economic policies in the Union with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union”. These include “full employment” and “balanced economic growth”.
To the extent that price stability is not compromised, and fighting climate change is a major (recently reaffirmed and emphasized) priority of the European Union, the question arises whether the ECB can use some of its available instruments to also pursue a climate change objective. This is certainly a point made by many climate activists.
However, this immediately raises further questions. Governments in various countries pursues many policies. Is the central bank legitimate to pick and freely select its preferred secondary objective? Or should it defer to elected bodies if the policy aims at allocating public resources, as seems normal in a representative democracy
The trade-off is real and difficult. If the central bank were to assess the situation itself and contemplate actions, its legitimacy would be challenged. In addition, it would expose itself to various political pressures. One other hand, if it requests some formal guidance by elected bodies (e.g. the parliament), it risks fueling the perception that it has lost its independence. There might be subtle ways and procedures to navigate between those risks. But the dangers are real and would justify a great caution. Under all circumstances, the Central bank should keep the absolute discretion to interrupt any action or program if its first-priority objective, price stability, were to be compromised.