1932

Abstract

Environmental factors, particularly those related to climate change, are stranding or could strand assets across different sectors and geographies with significant implications for economies, companies, financial institutions, communities, and workers. In this review, we focus on physical climate change, biodiversity loss, and litigation related to environmental factors as causes of stranded assets. We also review the emerging literature on the consequences of asset stranding for society before turning to some of the key supervisory responses that are emerging to ensure that stranded assets are measured and managed, particularly by financial institutions. These are among the areas of the stranded assets literature that have been growing most rapidly since 2015, and we focus on the literature produced since then.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-101430
2021-10-18
2024-07-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/46/1/annurev-environ-012220-101430.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-101430&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Caldecott B, Howarth N, McSharry P 2013. Stranded assets in agriculture: protecting value from environment-related risks Rep., Smith Sch. Enterp. Environ., Univ. Oxford Oxford:The publication that proposes the widely used meta-definition of stranded assets.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Caldecott B. 2018. Stranded Assets and the Environment: Risk, Resilience and Opportunity Abingdon, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Carbon Tracker Initiative 2011. Unburnable carbon: Are the world's financial markets carrying a carbon bubble? Rep., Carb. Track. Initiat. London:The think tank report that made very similar arguments to Krause et al. (5) and amplified by the fossil fuel divestment campaign.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Caldecott B. 2011. Why high-carbon investment could be the next sub-prime crisis. The Guardian July 12
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Krause F, Bach W, Koomey J. 1989. Energy Policy in the Greenhouse Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Intesci.The first known publication to hypothesize unburnable carbon and a potential carbon bubble. Significantly ahead of its time.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Carbon Tracker Initiative 2013. Unburnable carbon 2013: wasted capital and stranded assets Rep., Carbon Track. Initiat. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Ansar A, Caldecott B, Tilbury J. 2013. Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign: What does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel assets? Rep., Smith Sch. Enterp. Environ., Univ. Oxford Oxford:
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    van der Ploeg R, Rezai A. 2020. Stranded assets in the transition to a carbon-free economy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12:281–98
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Monasterolo I. 2020. Climate change and the financial system. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12:299–320
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Unruh GC. 2019. The real stranded assets of carbon lock-in. One Earth 1:399–401
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Acclimatise, Climate Finance Advisors, Four Twenty Seven 2018. Lenders’ guide for considering climate risk in infrastructure investments Rep., Acclimatise, Nottinghamshire, UK/Climate Finance Advisors, Washington, DC/Four Twenty Seven, Berkeley:
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Goldstein A, Turner WR, Gladstone J, Hole DG 2019. The private sector's climate change risk and adaptation blind spots. Nat. Clim. Change 9:18–25
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Dietz S, Bowen A, Dixon C, Gradwell P. 2016.. ‘ Climate value at risk’ of global financial assets. Nat. Clim. Change 6:676–79
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Managi S, Kumar P. 2018. Inclusive Wealth Report 2018: Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van Der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26:152–58
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    EID (Econ. Land Degrad. Initiat) 2015. The value of land: prosperous lands and positive rewards through sustainable land management Rep., EID, Ges. Int. Zs. Bonn, Ger:.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Clapp C, Lund HF, Aamaas B, Lannoo E 2017. Shades of climate risk: categorizing climate risk for investors Rep., Cent. Int. Clim. Res (CICERO), Oslo:
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Hubert R, Evain J, Nicol M 2018. Getting started on physical climate risk analysis in finance—available approaches and the way forward ClimINVEST Res. Proj. Work Package 1, Inst. Clim. Econ. (I4CE) Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    NGFS (Netw. Cent. Banks Superv. Green. Financ. Syst.) 2020. Overview of environmental risk analysis for financial institutions. Rep., NGFS Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jacob D, Taylor M, Bindi M, Brown S et al. 2018. Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, H-O Pörtner, D Roberts, J Skea et al.175–311 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Blöschl G, Hall J, Viglione A, Perdigão RAP, Parajka J et al. 2019. Changing climate both increases and decreases European river floods. Nature 573:108–11
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Stuart-Smith RF, Roe GH, Li S, Allen MR 2021. Increased outburst flood hazard from Lake Palcacocha due to human-induced glacier retreat. Nat. Geosci. 14:85–90
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Four Twenty Seven 2019. Demystifying climate scenario analysis for financial stakeholders Rep., Four Twenty Seven Berkeley:
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Geneva: IPCC
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Climate Central 2021. Coastal Risk Screening Tool: land projected to be below annual flood level in 2050. Climate Central. https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    OS-Climate 2021. Linux Foundation OS-Climate: open source breakthrough for climate-smart investing. OS-Climate. https://www.os-climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/OS-Climate_LinuxFoundation_Detailed-Overview_20210613.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Carbone 4 2017. Climate risk impact screening: a unique method to assess the impacts of physical risks from climate change on financial assets Rep., Carbone 4 Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Lord R, Bullock S, Birt M. 2019. Understanding climate risk at the asset level: the interplay of transition and physical risks Rep., Trucost, S&P Glob. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Caldecott B, Kruitwagen L, McCarten M, Zhou X, Lunsford D et al. 2018. Climate risk analysis from space: remote sensing, machine learning, and the future of measuring climate-related risk Rep., Oxford Sustain. Finance Progr., Univ. Oxford, Oxford/Carbon Delta, Zurich/Ger. Res. Cent. Geosci. Potsdam:
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Caldecott B, Dericks G, Bouveret G, Schumacher K, Pfeiffer A et al. 2018. Asset-level data and the energy transition: findings from ET Risk Work Package 2 Rep., Oxford Sustain. Finance Progr., Univ Oxford, Oxford:
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Caldecott B, Kruitwagen L. 2016. Guest opinion: how asset-level data can improve the assessment of environmental risk in credit analysis Rep., Alacra New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Caldecott B. 2019. Viewpoint: Spatial finance has a key role. IPE Novemb. https://www.ipe.com/viewpoint-spatial-finance-has-a-key-role-/10034269.article
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Spatial Finance Initiative 2020. GeoAsset. Spatial Finance Initiative https://spatialfinanceinitiative.com/geoasset-project/
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Woetzel J, Pinner D, Samandari H, Engel H, Krishnan M et al. 2020. Climate risk and response: physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts. Rep., McKinsey Glob. Inst., McKinsey & Co. New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Lin YE, Pereira JJ, Corlett RT, Cui X, Insarov GE et al. 2014. Asia. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change VR Barros, CB Field, DJ Dokken, MD Mastrandrea, KJ Mach et al.1327–70 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Davis KF, Bhattachan A, D'Odorico P, Suweis S 2018. A universal model for predicting human migration under climate change: examining future sea level rise in Bangladesh. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:064030
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Hofste R, Kuzma S, Walker S, Sutanudjaja E, Bierkens M et al. 2019. Aqueduct 3.0: Updated Decision-Relevant Global Water Risk Indicators Washington, DC: World Resour. Inst. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Murayama Y, Yashiro H, Kimura H 2012. Insurance solutions to climate change in Asia and the Pacific. In Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific: How Can Countries Adapt? V Anbumozhi, M Breiling, S Pathmarajah 206–16 New Delhi: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Lamond J, Penning-Rowsell E. 2014. The robustness of flood insurance regimes given changing risk resulting from climate change. Clim. Risk Manag. 2:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Vulturius G, Boyland M. 2016. Can insurance help Southeast Asia's farmers cope with climate change?. Stockholm Environment Institute Perspectives Oct. 18
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Chatterjee A. 2019. Risk transfer options for the climate vulnerable. Development Asia: An Initiative of Asian Development Bank Febr. 26. https://development.asia/explainer/risk-transfer-options-climate-vulnerable
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Flavelle C, Plumer B. 2019. California bans insurers from dropping policies made riskier by climate change. New York Times Dec. 5
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Butler B. 2020. Suncorp and IAG temporarily stop selling insurance in fire-affected areas of Victoria and NSW. The Guardian Jan. 14
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Jevrejeva S, Jackson LP, Grinsted A, Lincke D, Marzeion B 2018. Flood damage costs under the sea level rise with warming of 1.5°C and 2°C. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:074014
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Bernstein A, Gustafson MT, Lewis R. 2019. Disaster on the horizon: the price effect of sea level rise. J. Financ. Econ. 134:253–72
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Schulten A, Bertolotti A, Hayes P, Madaan A 2019. Getting physical: scenario analysis for assessing climate-related risks Rep., BlackRock Invest. Inst. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    BCI (Bus. Contin. Inst.), Zurich Insurance Group 2018. BCI Supply Chain Resilience Report 2018 Rep., Zurich Group Zurich:
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    De Bono A, Peduzzi P, Kluser S, Giuliani G 2004. Impacts of summer 2003 heat wave in Europe Rep., UN Environ. Progr. Nairobi:
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Damania R. 2020. The economics of water scarcity and variability. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 36:24–44
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Batten S, Sowerbutts R, Tanaka M. 2016. Let's talk about the weather: the impact of climate change on central banks Work. Pap. 603 Bank Engl. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Prudential Regulation Authority 2015. The impact of climate change on the UK insurance sector: a climate change adaptation report by the Prudential Regulation Authority Rep., Prudent. Regul. Auth., Bank Engl. London:The first report by a central bank on stranded assets and climate change.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Campiglio E, Dafermos Y, Monnin P, Ryan-Collins J, Schotten G, Tanaka M 2018. Climate change challenges for central banks and financial regulators. Nat. Clim. Change 8:462–68
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Promchote P, Simon Wang SY, Johnson PG 2015. The 2011 great flood in Thailand: climate diagnostics and implications from climate change. J. Climate 29:367–79
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Caldecott B, McDaniels J. 2014. Financial dynamics of the environment: risks, impacts, and barriers to resilience Rep., Smith Sch. Enterp., Univ. Oxford Oxford:
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Hawley J, Williams A. 2007. Universal Owners: challenges and opportunities. Corp. Gov. 15:415–20
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Schellnhuber HJ, Hare W, Serdeczny O, Adams S, Coumou D et al. 2012. Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided Rep., World Bank Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Dietz S, Stern N. 2015. Endogenous growth, convexity of damage and climate risk: how Nordhaus' framework supports deep cuts in carbon emissions. Econ. J. 125:574–620
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Weitzman M. 2013. A precautionary tale of uncertain tail fattening. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 55:159–73
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    NGFS (Netw. Cent. Banks Superv. Green. Financ. Syst.) 2020. Guide for supervisors: integrating climate-related and environmental risks into prudential supervision Rep. NGFS, Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Carney M. 2015. Breaking the tragedy of the horizon - climate change and financial stability Speech, Bank Engl. London: Sept. 29 The speech that accompanied the 2015 Prudential Regulation Authority report (51).
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Barker S. 2017. The Carbon Boomerang: litigation risk as a driver and consequence of the energy transition. Rep., Minter Ellison, 2 Degrees Invest. Initiat. Paris:.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Wasim R. 2019. Corporate (non)disclosure of climate change information. Columbia Law Rev 119:1311–54
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Gloppen S, Clair ALS 2013. Climate change lawfare. Climate Change: International Law and Global Governance OC Ruppel, C Roschmann, K Ruppel-Schlichting 171–200 Baden-Baden, Ger: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Ganguly G, Setzer J, Heyvaert V. 2018. If at first you don't succeed: suing corporations for climate change. Oxf. J. Legal Stud. 38:841–68
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Barker S, Mulholland E. 2019. Directors' liability and climate risk: comparative paper—Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Rep., Commonw. Clim. Law Initiat. Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Staker A, Garton A. 2018. Directors' liability and climate change: United Kingdom—country paper Rep., Commonw. Clim. Law Initiat. Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Hutley N, Hartford-Davis S. 2016. Memorandum of Opinion: Climate Change and Directors' Duties Melbourne: Cent. Policy Dev., Future Bus. Counc.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Hutley N, Hartford-Davis S. 2019. Climate Change and Directors' Duties: Supplementary Memorandum of Opinion Melbourne: Cent. Policy Dev.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Sales P. 2019. Directors’ duties and climate change: keeping pace with environmental challenges Rep., Anglo-Australas. Law Soc. Sydney:
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Hanisch F. 2020. Divesting from fossil fuels, investing in our future: a toolkit for cities Rep., C40 Cities Clim. Leadersh. Group London, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Otto FEL, Skeie RB, Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T, Allen MR. 2017. Assigning historic responsibility for extreme weather events. Nat. Clim. Change 7:757–59
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Vogel MM, Zscheischler J, Wartenburger R, Dee D, Seneviratne SI 2019. Concurrent 2018 hot extremes across Northern Hemisphere due to human-induced climate change. Earth's Future 7:692–703
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    van Oldenborgh GJ, Krikken F, Lewis S, Leach NJ, Lehner F et al. 2021. Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 21:941–60
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Ciavarella A, Cotterill D, Stott P, Kew S, Philip S et al. 2020. Prolonged Siberian heat of 2020 Rep., World Weather Attrib. Oxford:
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Marjanac S, Patton L. 2018. Extreme weather event attribution science and climate change litigation: an essential step in the causal chain?. J. Energy Nat. Resourc. Law 36:265–98
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Minnerop P, Otto F. 2020. Climate change and causation: joining law and climate science on the basis of formal logic. Buffalo Environ. Law J. 27:49
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Heede R. 2014. Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010. Climatic Change 122:229–41
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Climate Accountability Institute 2020. Carbon Majors 2018 data set. Climate Accountability Institute https://climateaccountability.org/carbonmajors_dataset2020.html
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Stuart-Smith RF, Otto FEL, Saad AI, Lisi G, Minnerop P et al. 2021. Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11:651–55
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Trotter (Trustee of the PG&E Fire Victim Trust) v. Chew et al., CGC-18-572326, Ca. S. Ct., San Francisco, San Francisco County 2021.)
  81. 81. 
    Gold R. 2019. PG&E: the first climate-change bankruptcy, probably not the last. The Wall Street Journal Jan. 18. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-wildfires-and-the-first-climate-change-bankruptcy-11547820006
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    ClientEarth v. Enea., Pol. Reg. Ct., Poznań 2019.)
  83. 83. 
    Sabin Cent. Clim. Change Law, Columbia Law Sch. ; 2020. ClientEarth v. Enea. Climate Change Litigation Database http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/clientearth-v-enea/
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust, NSD1333/2018, Aust. Fed. Ct. ( 2020.)
  85. 85. 
    Sabin Cent. Clim. Change Law, Columbia Law Sch. ; 2020. McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust. Climate Change Litigation Database http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/mcveigh-v-retail-employees-superannuation-trust/
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    REST (Retail Empl. Superann. Trust) 2020. Statement from REST Statement, REST Parramatta, Aust:.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Abrahams v. Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Aust. Fed. Ct. ( 2017.)
  88. 88. 
    Sabin Cent. Clim. Change Law, Columbia Law Sch. ; 2020. Abrahams v. Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Climate Change Litigation Database http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/abrahams-v-commonwealth-bank-australia/
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    O'Donnell v. Commonwealth, Aust. Fed. Ct. ( 2020.)
  90. 90. 
    Sabin Cent. Clim. Change Law, Columbia Law Sch 2020. Complaint against BP in respect of violations of the OECD Guidelines. Climate Change Litigation Database. http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/complaint-against-bp-in-respect-of-violations-of-the-oecd-guidelines/
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    UK Natl. Contact Point 2020. Initial assessment: ClientEarth complaint to the UK NCP about BP. UK National Contact Point June 16. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/client-earth-complaint-to-the-uk-ncp-about-bp/initial-assessment-clientearth-complaint-to-the-uk-ncp-about-bp
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Grandoni D. 2020. States and cities scramble to sue oil companies over climate change. The Washington Post Sept. 14
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG, 2 O 285/15, Ger. High. Reg. Ct., Essen ( 2015.)
  94. 94. 
    Sabin Cent. Clim. Change Law, Columbia Law Sch. ; 2020. Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG. Climate Change Litigation Database http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2019. Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action Paris: OECD Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Shaffer R. 2013. Judicial oversight in the comparative context: biodiversity protection in the United States, Australia, and Canada. Environ. Law Rep. 43:10169–88
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Barker S, Mulholland E, Onifade T. 2020. The emergence of foreseeable biodiversity-related liability risks for financial institutions: A gathering storm? Rep., Commonw. Clim. Law Initiat. Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, Ngo H 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Bonn, Ger.: IPBES Secr.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Vogt-Schilb A, Hallegatte S. 2017. Climate policies and nationally determined contributions: reconciling the needed ambition with the political economy. WIREs Rev. Energy Environ. 6:e256
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Fay M, Hallegatte S, Vogt-Schilb A. 2015. Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future Washington, DC: World Bank Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Sartor O. 2018. Implementing coal transitions: insights from case studies of major coal-consuming economies Rep., Inst. Sustain. Dev. Int. Relat., Clim. Strateg. Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Hepburn C, O'Callaghan B, Stern N, Stiglitz JE, Zenghelis D. 2020. Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Rep., Oxford Smith Sch. Enterp. Environ., Univ. Oxford Oxford:
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Rozenberg J, Vogt-Schilb A, Hallegatte S. 2020. Instrument choice and stranded assets in the transition to clean capital. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 100:102183
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Mealy P. 2018. Know what? New lenses on productive knowledge shed light on long run development, structural change, job switching and the transition to the green economy. PhD thesis Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Inst. Glob. Value Chains, Inst. Urban Dev. Environ 2019. Research on employment issues associated with coal industry transition: executive report China Coal Consum. Cap Plan Policy Res. Proj., Univ. Int. Bus. Econ. Chin. Acad. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Feng H. 2017. 2.3 million Chinese coal miners will need new jobs by 2020. China Dialogue Aug. 7
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Healy N, Barry J. 2017. Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: fossil fuel divestment and a “just transition.”. Energy Policy 108:451–59
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Duteil H. 2019. Sustainable finance: It's all about transition! Part one. Environmental Finance Sept. 6
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Mealy P, Teytelboym A. 2017. Economic complexity and the green economy SSRN Work. Pap. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3111644
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Rafaty R, Srivastav S, Hoops B 2020. Revoking coal mining permits: an economic and legal analysis. Climate Policy 20:980–96
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Coady D, Parry I, Sears L, Shang B. 2017. How large are global fossil fuel subsidies?. World Dev 91:11–27
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Kåberger T, Sterner T. 2020. Letter: Let's not waste this chance to transition to an environmentally sustainable future. Financial Times March 26
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    IMF (Int. Monet. Fund) 2016. Too slow for too long. Rep. 0256–6877, IMF Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Grant A. 2020. The impair state: the Paris Agreement starts to impact oil & gas accounting Rep., Carbon Track. Initiat. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Hamer A. 2020. BP cuts long-term oil price assumption by 30 per cent. Investors’ Chronicle June 15
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Vivid Economics 2020. Green Stimulus Index: An assessment of the orientation of COVID-19 stimulus in relation to climate change, biodiversity and other environmental impacts Rep. Finance Biodivers. Initiat. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Caldecott B. 2020. Post Covid-19 stimulus and bailouts need to be compatible with the Paris Agreement. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1809292
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Mukanjari S, Sterner T. 2020. Charting a “Green Path” for recovery from COVID-19. Environ. Resour. Econ. 76:825–53
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2016. Green financing: challenges and opportunities in the transition to a clean and climate-resilient economy. OECD J. Financ. Market Trends 2016 63–75
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Elliott RJR, Schumacher I, Withagen C. 2020. Suggestions for a Covid-19 post-pandemic research agenda in environmental economics. Environ. Resour. Econ. 76:1187–1213
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Garrett-Peltier H. 2017. Green versus brown: comparing the employment impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fossil fuels using an input-output model. Econ. Model. 61:439–47
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Henry MS, Bazilian MD, Markuson C. 2020. Just transitions: histories and futures in a post-COVID world. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68:101668
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Stokes LC. 2020. Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Jakob M, Hilaire J 2015. Climate science: unburnable fossil-fuel reserves. Nature 517:150–52
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Mercure JF, Pollitt H, Viñuales JE, Edwards NR, Holden PB et al. 2018. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nat. Clim. Change 8:588–93
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Ansari D, Holz F. 2020. Between stranded assets and green transformation: fossil-fuel-producing developing countries towards 2055. World Dev 130:104947
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Brennan T, Boyd J. 2006. Political economy and the efficiency of compensation for takings. Contemp. Econ. Policy 24:188–202
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Bos K, Gupta J. 2019. Stranded assets and stranded resources: implications for climate change mitigation and global sustainable development. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 56:101215
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Sovacool BK, Scarpaci J. 2016. Energy justice and the contested petroleum politics of stranded assets: policy insights from the Yasuní-ITT Initiative in Ecuador. Energy Policy 95:158–71
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Sandbag 2019. Solving the coal puzzle: lessons from four years of coal phase-out policy in Europe Rep., Eur. Beyond Coal Berlin:
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    Jotzo F, Mazouz S, Wiseman J 2018. Coal transition in Australia: an overview of issues Work. Pap. 1903 Cent. Clim. Energy Policy, Crawford Sch. Public Policy, Aust. Natl. Univ. Acton, Aust. Cap. Territory:
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Lehr R, O'Boyle M. 2020. Solar for coal swaps Rep., Energy Innov. San Francisco:
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Kalkuhl M, Steckel JC, Edenhofer O. 2020. All or nothing: climate policy when assets can become stranded. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 100:102214
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Scott Cato M, Fletcher C 2019. Introducing sell-by dates for stranded assets: ensuring an orderly transition to a sustainable economy. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 10:33548
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Europe Beyond Coal 2019. Just transition in the context of the European power utilities and financial institutions Rep., Eur. Beyond Coal Berlin:
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. 
    Colgan JD, Green JF, Hale TN. 2019. Asset revaluation and the existential politics of climate change. Int. Organ. 2020:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    van der Ploeg F, Rezai A. 2019. Simple rules for climate policy and integrated assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 72:77–108
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Jin W, Zhang ZX 2019. Capital accumulation, Green Paradox, and stranded assets: an endogenous growth perspective FEEM Work. Pap., 33.2018 FEEM (Fondaz. Eni Enrico Mattei Milan:
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Bauer N, McGlade C, Hilaire J, Ekins P. 2018. Divestment prevails over the green paradox when anticipating strong future climate policies. Nat. Clim. Change 8:130–34
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    van Der Ploeg F. 2020. Race to burn the last ton of carbon and the risk of stranded assets. Eur. J. Political Econ. 64:101915
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Mangat R, Dalby S, Paterson M 2018. Divestment discourse: war, justice, morality and money. Environ. Politics 27:187–208
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    NGFS (Netw. Cent. Banks Superv. Green. Financ. Syst.) 2019. A call for action: climate change as a source of financial risk. Rep. NGFS Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 143. 
    Task Force Clim.-relat. Financ. Discl. (TCFD) 2017. Final report: recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures Rep. TCFD London:
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Prudential Regulation Authority 2019. Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks from climate change Superv. Statement SS3/19, Bank Engl London:
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    European Central Bank 2020. Guide on climate-related and environmental risks: Supervisory expectations relating to risk management and disclosure Rep. Eur. Cent. Bank Frankfurt:
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Monetary Authority of Singapore 2020. Response to feedback received on proposed guidelines on environmental risk management (banks) Rep., Monet. Auth Singap:.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147. 
    APRA (Austr. Prudent. Regul. Auth.) 2020. Understanding and managing the financial risks of climate change. APRA Febr. 24
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 148. 
    Cent. Sustain. Stud., Getulio Vargas Found 2014. The Brazilian financial system and the Green Economy: alignment with sustainable development Rep., Braz. Fed. Banks, São Paulo/UN Environ. Progr. Nairobi:
    [Google Scholar]
  149. 149. 
    Prudential Regulation Authority 2018. Transition in thinking: the impact of climate change on the UK banking sector Rep., Prudent. Regul. Auth Bank Engl. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  150. 150. 
    ESRB (Eur. Syst. Risk Board) 2016. Too late, too sudden: transition to a low-carbon economy and systemic risk. Rep. 6 Adv. Sci. Comm., ESRB Frankfurt:
    [Google Scholar]
  151. 151. 
    Bolton P, Morgan D, Pereira de Silva LA, Samama F, Svartzman R 2020. The green swan: central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change Rep., Bank Int. Settl. Basel, Switz:.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. 152. 
    Staker A, Garton A, Barker S. 2017. Concerns misplaced: Will compliance with the TCFD recommendations really expose companies and directors to liability risk? Rep., Commonw. Clim. Law Initiat. Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  153. 153. 
    HM Treasury 2020. Chancellor sets out ambition for future of UK financial services U. K. Gov. London: Nov 9. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-sets-out-ambition-for-future-of-uk-financial-services
    [Google Scholar]
  154. 154. 
    Shaw J. 2020. New Zealand first in the world to require climate risk reporting. PreventionWeb Sept. 15. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/view/73643
    [Google Scholar]
  155. 155. 
    Carlin D, Fischer R. 2020. From disclosure to action: applying TCFD principles throughout financial institutions Rep., UN Environ. Progr. Finance Initiat. Geneva:
    [Google Scholar]
  156. 156. 
    D'Orazio P, Popoyan L 2019. Fostering green investments and tackling climate-related financial risks: Which role for macroprudential policies?. Ecol. Econ. 160:25–37
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 157. 
    Dikau S, Ryan-Collins J. 2017. Green central banking in emerging market and developing country economies Rep., New Econ. Found. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  158. 158. 
    Kemfert C. 2020. Great green transition and finance. Intereconomics 55:181–86
    [Google Scholar]
  159. 159. 
    ESRB (Eur. Syst. Risk Board) 2020. Positively green: measuring climate change risks to financial stability Rep., Eur. Cent. Bank Frankfurt:
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 160. 
    Majnoni G, Powell A. 2011. On endogenous risk, the amplification effects of financial systems and macro prudential policies Rep., Inter-Am. Dev. Bank Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  161. 161. 
    D'Orazio P, Popoyan L 2019. Dataset on green macroprudential regulations and instruments: objectives, implementation and geographical diffusion. Data Brief 24:103870
    [Google Scholar]
  162. 162. 
    Battiston S, Mandel A, Monasterolo I, Schütze F, Visentin G. 2017. A climate stress-test of the financial system. Nat. Clim. Change 7:283–88
    [Google Scholar]
  163. 163. 
    Thomä J, Chenet H. 2017. Transition risks and market failure: a theoretical discourse on why financial models and economic agents may misprice risk related to the transition to a low-carbon economy. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 7:82–98
    [Google Scholar]
  164. 164. 
    IIPP (Inst. Innov. Public Purp.) 2020. A green economic renewal from the COVID-19 crisis Brief Pap. 4 IIPP, Univ Coll. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  165. 165. 
    D'Orazio P, Popoyan L, Monnin P 2019. Prudential regulation can help in tackling climate change. Council on Economics Policies Blog Febr. 13
    [Google Scholar]
  166. 166. 
    Flodén M. 2019. Flodén: Riksbank selling bonds for climate reasons Sveriges Riksbank Stockholm: Nov 13. https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/press-and-published/speeches-and-presentations/2019/floden-riksbank-selling-bonds-for-climate-reasons/
    [Google Scholar]
  167. 167. 
    NGFS (Netw. Cent. Banks Superv. Green. Financ. Syst.) 2020. Guide to climate scenario analysis for central banks and supervisors. Rep., NGFS Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  168. 168. 
    Pfeiffer A. 2018. The decarbonization identity and pathways to net-zero: the scale and impact of committed cumulative carbon emissions and stranded assets in the electricity generation sector on the decarbonisation of the economy. PhD thesis Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-101430
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-101430
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error